HF 
\HS 

N4 


i-O 
V_£> 

CO 


lur  Unjust  Tariff  Law, 


A  Plain  Statement 


ABOUT 


High  Taxes. 


BY 


HENRY  LOOMIS   NELSON, 

CLERK  TO  THE  SPEAKER  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTORY  LETTER 


HON.  J.  G.  CARLISLE. 


BOSTON: 
CHARLES    H.    WHITING, 

32  BROMFIELD  STREET. 

1884. 


Copyright, 
BY  GEORGE  F.  BABBITT. 

1884. 


All  Rights  Reserved. 


C.  J.   PETERS   AND   SON, 

ELECTROTYPERS  AND  STEREOTYPERS, 
145  HIGH  ST.,  BOSTON. 


P  E  E  F  A  C  E. 


THIS  book  is  intended  to  present  the  argument,  as  it 
stands  to-day,  in  favor  of  a  reduction  of  existing  rates  of 
duty,  and  of  a  tariff  for  revenue  exclusively.  The  purpose 
is  to  state  fairly  the  present  positions  of  the  protectionists 
and  their  opponents,  and  to  show  the  merchant,  and  the 
men  who  work  on  farms,  in  shops,  in  factories,  in  offices, 
and  in  their  studies,  the  evils  inflicted  upon  the  country  by 
the  protective  system,  and  the  benefits  which  were  con- 
ferred by  the  low  tariff  which  the  country  enjoyed  between 
1850  and  1860. 


M290O57 

A/ 


SPEAKER'S  ROOM,  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  July  4,  1884. 

HENRY  L.  NELSON,  Esq. 

DEAR  SIR,  —  Learning  that  you  have  prepared  and  propose  to 
publish  a  volume  containing  a  condensed  statement  of  the  arguments 
in  opposition  to  the  protective  system,  and  in  favor  of  a  revenue  tariff, 
I  desire  to  say  that  in  my  opinion  such  a  work  will,  on  account  of  the 
great  importance  of  the  subject  to  which  it  relates,  be  received  as  a 
welcome  addition  to  what  has  already  been  done  by  the  public  press 
and  our  public  men  during  the  last  few  years.  The  question  of 
revenue  reform  is  now  engaging  the  earnest  attention  of  the  people 
in  every  part  of  the  country,  and  it  is  evident  that  the  agitation  must 
go  on  until  the  inequalities  of  our  present  system  of  taxation  shall 
be  removed,  and  the  taxing  power  of  the  government  restricted  to  its 
legitimate  purposes.  In  order  to  secure  these  results  there  must  be 
intelligent  discussion  of  the  whole  subject  in  all  its  bearings  upon  the 
industrial  and  commercial  interests  of  the  country,  and  therefore 
every  honest  attempt  to  place  within  the  reach  of  the  people  such 
facts  and  arguments  as  will  enable  them  to  understand  the  unjust 
operations  of  the  existing  system,  and  the  advantages  of  a  more 
liberal  one,  should  receive  the  approbation  and  encouragement  of  all 
who  desire  to  promote  the  welfare  of  those  engaged  in  our  various 
industries  at  home,  as  well  as  those  employed  in  our  foreign  carrying 
trade. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

J.  G.  CARLISLE. 


OUR   UNJUST  TARIFF  LAW. 


I. 

WHAT  PROTECTION  MEANS. 

PROTECTION  in  this  country  means  a  tax  levied  on  every 
merchant,  working-man,  farmer,  and  other  consumer  for  the 
benefit  of  certain  manufacturers. 

The  tax  is  indirect ;  it  is  paid,  first,  by  the  person  who 
buys  in  a  foreign  country  goods  that  are  on  the  tariff  list. 
In  the  end  it  is  paid  by  the  man  who  buys  the  goods  for  his 
own  use.  For  example,  if  the  government  collects  55  per 
cent  on  a  woollen  coat  which  cost  in  England  $10,  the  mer- 
chant who  buys  it  and  brings  it  here  must  pay  for  it  $15.50, 
and  when  he  sells  it  to  the  man  who  will  wear  it,  he  must 
charge  him  the  $15.50  and  the  profit  which  he  must  get  in 
order  to  pay  the  expenses  of  his  store  and  his  home  and  for 
savings.  The  $5.50  represents,  speaking  roughly,  the  differ- 
ence between  the  price  paid  by  the  American  who  wears  the 
coat  and  that  paid  by  the  Englishman  who  wears  its  mate. 

There  is  no  answer  to  this  proposition.  If  the  tax  were 
not  added  to  the  price  paid  by  the  consumer,  then  there 
would  be  no  "  protection  "  about  it. 

This  tax  came  to  be  called  protective  because  it  is  sup- 
posed to  make  it  profitable  for  Americans  to  engage  in  cer- 
tain kinds  of  business,  which  they  would  not  engage  in  if 
the  law  did  not  tax  the  people  for  their  benefit. 

For  example :  If  A  wants  to  be  a  woollen  manufacturer, 
he  first  makes  up  his  mind  that  the  woollens  that  he  will 

7 


8  OUR  UNJUST   TARIFF  LAW. 

make  will  be  too  bad  and  too  dear  for  the  people  of  this 
country.  Therefore  he  goes  to  the  Congress  and  asks  for 
"protection."  He  asks  that  the  government  shall  make  the 
price  of  foreign  woollens  so  high  that  he  can  undersell  the 
foreign  manufacturers.  The  result  is,  that  if  an  American 
buys  the  foreign  woollen  because  he  wants  better  cloth  than 
is  made  in  his  own  country,  he  must  pay  in  the  average 
57.71  per  cent  more  than  an  Englishman  or  Frenchman 
would  be  obliged  to  pay  for  it.  The  extra  price  goes  to  the 
government.  If  he  buys  American  woollen,  he  pays  more 
than  it  is  worth,  and  this  increased  price  goes  to  the  manu- 
facturer, in  order  that  he  may  have  a  profitable  business. 
If  the  American  complains  because  the  government  takes 
away  his  savings  to  add  to  the  savings  of  his  neighbor  the 
manufacturer,  this  manufacturer  and  his  fellows  say  that  the 
American  is  unpatriotic,  because  they  have  come  to  believe 
that  the  government  was  founded  for  their  benefit. 

This  system-was  not  always  called  protection.  When  our 
revolution  came,  it  was  called  the  "  colonial  system."  By 
means  of  it  Great  Britain  enabled  those  of  her  subjects  liv- 
ing at  home  to  make  their  several  branches  of  business  pro- 
fitable at  the  expense  of  those  of  her  subjects  who  lived  in 
the  colonies.  The  colonists  were  forced  to  trade  with  the 
mother  country  under  severe  penalties.  One  result  of  Great 
Britain's  colonial  system  was  the  loss  of  her  American  col- 
onies. 

It  was  a  universal  heresy  a  hundred  years  ago,  that  trade 
ought  to  be  governed  and  controlled  by  human  laws;  and 
that  if,  in  commercial  transactions,  one  nation  was  obliged 
to  pay  mone}r  to  another  nation,  the  first  nation  suffered  a 
loss. 

For  example :  If  A  is  a  baker  and  B  is  a  tailor,  and  A 
buys  his  clothes  of  B,  and  B  buys  only  a  part  or  none  of  his 
bread  of  A,  A  paj^s  for  his  clothes  in  money.  He  buys  the 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  9 

clothes  of  B  because  he  can  get  them  cheaper  of  him  than 
of  any  other  tailor,  while  A  charges  more  for  his  bread  than 
B  is  \villing  to  pay.  Does  A  lose  because  he  pays  money  to 
B  instead  of  bread,  selling  his  bread  to  those  who  are  will- 
ing to  pay  more  for  it  than  B?  This  was  the  old  doctrine 
about  nations.  Under  this  old  doctrine  it  would  have  meant 
a  loss  if  we  sold  our  raw  cotton  to  England  for  more  than 
France  would  give,  and  paid  money  to  France  for  silks. 
The  doctrine  of  protection  is  a  survival  of  the  old  ignorance 
and  bigotry  which  considered  it  dangerous  for  nations  to 
have  commercial  relations  with  each  other. 

When  we  had  made  peace  with  Great  Britain,  John 
Adams,  Benjamin  Franklin,  and  the  other  negotiators  of 
our  treaties  with  foreign  powers  attempted  to  secure  an 
agreement  for  unrestrained  trade;  but  the  prejudices  of  the 
day  were  too  strong,  and  the  attempts  failed.  Then  some 
of  the  States  undertook  to  retaliate,  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing France  and  Great  Britain  come  to  terms.  But  the  sys- 
tem did  not  work  well,  for  the  English  ships  unloaded  in 
New  York  instead  of  Boston,  and  laughed  at  the  little  pro- 
tection dodge.  Still  it  was  firmly  fixed  in  the  minds  of 
most  of  the  leading  public  men  of  a  hundred  years  ago  that 
it  would  be  wise  for  the  American  people  if  Great  Britain 
refused  to  permit  them  to  sell  what  they  raised  from  their 
soil  in  her  dear  markets,  and  to  refuse,  on  their  part,  to 
purchase  in  her  cheap  markets.  It  was  thus  early  that  the 
true  wisdom  of  protection  asserted  itself. 

As  soon  as  our  present  constitution  was  adopted,  the 
agitation  for  protection  was  begun,  and  by  that  time  the 
name  "Protection"  was  employed. 

Taxing  commerce  and  labor  and  agriculture  is  a  very 
indirect  way  to  protect  manufacturers ;  but  it  is  the  way 
it  is  done  in  this  country.  From  the  very  first  it  was  said, 
in  speeches  in  Congress,  and  in  laws  enacted  by  Congress, 


10  OUR   UNJUST    TARIFF   LAW. 

that  the  government  must  prevent  the  people  of  the  United 
States  from  trading  too  much,  because  money  would  be  lost 
if  we  bought  what  we  needed  too  cheaply ;  that  our  people 
must  not  engage  too  extensively  in  agriculture,  but  that 
some  of  those  who  would  naturally  work  on  the  farm  must 
be  induced  to  work  in  the  factory,  in  order  that  there  might 
be  some  one  to  eat  up  what  was  raised  by  those  who  per- 
sisted in  remaining  farmers.  The  idea  of  the  protectionists 
was  that  we  should  make  all  the  manufactured  articles  that 
we  used.  Therefore  in  1789  a  law  was  enacted  which  put 
a  tax  on  imported  articles,  in  order  that  their  price  might 
be  increased  so  much  that  Americans  could  make  similar 
articles  and  sell  them  for  no  more  than  the  artificial  price 
fixed  by  the  government.  The  theory  was  also  that  the 
farmer  ought  to  be  invited  to  leave  his  fields  and  move  into 
a  town,  because  he  could  earn  more  money  in  a  factory  than 
on  his  land. 

This  theory  makes  the  law  of  nature  subordinate  to  the 
law  of  man.  The  result  of  it  is  that  a  Congress  of  poli- 
ticians enact  statutes  for  the  purpose  of  distributing  labor 
in  diverse  occupations,  in  order  that  the  community  may 
enjoy  greater  wealth.  These  politicians  assume  that  they 
know  what  is  best  for  men  whose  lives  are  devoted  to  mak- 
ing money ;  that  men  cannot  be  trusted  to  take  care  of  their 
own  interests. 

At  first  the  protectionists  were  very  modest.  They  did 
not  make  demands;  they  preferred  requests.  The  iron 
industries  of  Pennsylvania  wanted  a  little  protection  for  a 
very  short  time,  in  order  that  American  working-men  might 
be  educated  sufficiently  to  enable  them  to  compete  with  the 
English  operatives.  As  early  as  1810,  Mr.  Gallatin,  who 
was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  reported  that  the  following 
industries  were  "firmly  established:"  iron  and  manufac- 
tures of  iron,  manufactures  of  cotton,  wool  and  flax,  paper, 


OUK   UNJUST  TARIFF   LAW.  11 

printing-types,  books,  etc.  But  this  did  not  prevent  a 
clamor  for  more  protection.  In  fact  the  demands  for  pro- 
tection increased  the  more  protection  was  given. 

For  example:  On  manufactured  cottons,  not  printed, 
stained,  or  colored,  a  duty  of  15  per  cent  was  imposed  by 
the  acts  of  1797  and  1800;  under  the  acts  of  1804,  1807, 
and  1808  the  duty  was  increased  to  17£  per  cent;  the  acts 
of  1812,  1813,  1815,  and  1816  further  increased  the  rate  to 
85  per  cent.  This  indicates  the  advance  of  protection.  It 
grew  with  what  it  fed  on. 

Presently  the  argument  changed.  Very  early  in  ^  the 
century  it  was  announced  by  the  protectionists  that  they 
believed  in  taxing  imports  without  any  view  of  raising 
revenue,  but  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  manufacturers. 
This  theory  means  nothing  less  than  that  if,  of  two  men 
living  in  the  same  city,  A  desires  to  make  cloth,  and  B 
desires  to  import  similar  cloth,  the  government  ought  to 
drive  B  out  of  business,  by  taxing  what  he  desires  to  sell, 
in  order  that  A  may  conduct  his  manufacturing  business 
profitably. 

This  is  substantially  the  present  position  of  the  protec- 
tionists. They  say  that  they  levy  a  tariff  tax  to  prevent 
commerce,  and  to  increase  manufactures.  This  tax  is  paid 
by  the  person  who  buys  the  goods.  If  imported  goods  are 
bought,  the  importer  adds  the  amount  of  duty  paid  by  him 
to  the  other  elements  of  cost.  If  domestic  goods  are  bought, 
the  manufacturer  is  enabled  to  charge  the  consumer  the 
whole  tariff  duty  in  addition  to  the  price  he  would  have 
been  obliged  to  accept  if  he  had  been  forced  to  compete 
with  the  foreign  goods. 

The  clamor  of  protected  interests  for  more  taxes  on  the 
people  grew  until  1824,  when  the  rates  of  duty  were  in- 
creased so  that  the  average  rate  was  equal  to  37  per  cent. 
But  even  then  the  clamor  did  not  cease.  The  manufacturers 


12  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

insisted  that  the  people  were  not  taxed  enough,  and  that 
more  taxes  must  be  imposed  in  order  that  those  who  made 
blankets,  and  woollen  goods,  and  hats,  and  trace-chains,  and 
iron  articles  of  all  kinds,  could  gain  more  profit.  Therefore, 
in  1828,  the  "tariff  of  abominations"  was  passed.  Prof. 
Sunnier  says  this  tariff  imposed  an  average  tax  of  41  per- 
cent on  the  consumers  of  the  country. 

Iii  1833  reduction  began,  and  it  was  a  horizontal  reduc- 
tion, the  law  providing  for  a  reduction  of  rates,  every  other 
year,  by  one-tenth  of  the  excess  over  20  per  cent  until  1841, 
and.  that  in  1842  no  rate  of  duty  should  be  greater  than  20 
per  cent. 

In  1842  duties  were  again  raised.  In  1846  a  tariff  was 
passed  that  reduced  duties  to  25|  per  cent,  and  in  1857  the 
duties  were  still  further  reduced  to  20^  per  cent.  From 
1846  the  country  enjoyed  great  prosperity. 

The  Merrill  Tariff  Act  of  1861  was  the  beginning  of  a  new 
era  of  protection.  Since  that  time  the  interests  for  whose 
benefit  the  people  have  been  taxed  have  not  ceased  to  clamor 
for  more.  The  Merrill  tariff  lasted  four  months,  and 
then  tariff  taxes  were  increased.  Again  in  1862  the  taxes 
were  raised,  and  again  in  1864,  1865,  1866,  and  1867.  In 
1870  there  was  a  slight  reduction  of  duties.  In  1874,  the 
average  rate  of  duties  was  38£  per  cent. 

In  1815  Mr.  Clay  asked  for  a  tax  of  25  per  cent,  saying 
that  if  this  bounty  were  granted  he  believed  that  "three 
years  would  be  sufficient  to  place  our  manufacturers  on  this 
desirable  footing"  [i.  e.  where  their  goods  might  bo  sold  as 
cheaply  as  similar  goods  were  sold  abroad]. 

Mr.  Clay  is  very  often  called  "  The  Father  of  the  Ameri- 
can System."  Those  who  make  nse  of  this  expression  mean 
that  he  is  the  originator  of  a  system  that  taxes  all  the  people 
of  the  country  for  the  benefit  of  a  few  manufacturers.  Mr. 
Clay  believed  that  tariff  taxes,  like  all  other  taxes,  should  be 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  13 

levied  for  the  purpose  of  producing  revenue  for  the  country. 
If  in  doing  this,  he  said,  incidental  protection  can  be  afforded 
to  home  industry,  he  invoked  every  patriot  to  unite  in 
effecting  that  object. 

This  is  not  the  interpretation  of  the  present  generation  of 
descendants  of  this  "Father  of  the  American  System." 
Senator  Frye  said,  in  1882,  "  I  am  a  protectionist  from 
principle.  If  there  were  no  public  debt,  no  interest  to  pay, 
no  pension  list,  no  army  and  no  navy  to  support,  I  still 
should  oppose  free  trade  and  its  twin  sister,  tariff  for  rev- 
enue only,  and  favor  protective  duties." 

More  recently  still,  Mr.  Russell,  a  member  of  the  Ways 
and  Means  Committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
announced  in  a  speech  in  Congress  that  he  belonged  to 
the  party  of  protection,  and  that  that  party  would  appeal 
to  the  people  on  its  tariff  policy,  which  was  that  taxes 
should  be  levied  not  only  to  support  the  government,  but  to 
"protect"  (support)  certain  private  citizens  who  desire  to 
grow  rich  in  the  business  of  manufacturing,  and  who  ask 
the  government  to  enable  them  to  realize  their  desire  by 
compelling  all  their  fellow-citizens  to  pay  more  for  Ameri- 
can goods  than  they  would  be  obliged  to  pay  for  similar 
foreign  goods  ;  and  to  prevent  certain  of  their  fellow-citi- 
zens from  engaging  in  the  business  of  importing  such  for- 
eign goods. 

Now,  therefore,  the  meaning  of  protection  is  clear.  It  is 
that  this  government  shall  continue  to  lay  a  tax  on  the 
people  for  the  support  of  the  manufacturers.  There  were 
50,155,783  people  in  this  country,  according  to  the  last 
census,  and  only  3,837,112  of  them  were  engaged  in  the 
work  of  manufacturing.  When  Mr.  Morrill  asked  to  have 
duties  increased,  in  1861,  he  said  that  the  bill  was  a  war 
measure.  In  1864  he  said  again:  —  "This  is  intended  as  a 
war  measure,  a  temporary  measure,  and  we  must,  as  such, 
give  it  our  support." 


14  OUR   UNJUST  TARIFF  LAW. 

In  1870  a  number  of  those  who  now  adopt  the  position 
laid  down  by  the  leading  men  of  their  party,  that  protection 
is  right  for  the  sake  of  protection,  advocated  a  repeal  of  the 
war  duties.  Among  these  advocates  of  a  freer  trade  were 
the  late  President  Garfield  and  Senator  Allison.  About 
this  time  there  was  a  reaction  against  the  high  tariff  rates. 
The  high  rates  were  imposed  in  1864,  "as  a  necessary  offset 
to  internal  revenue  duties  and  as  a  temporary  war  tariff." 
Since  the  war  four  fifths  of  the  internal  taxes  have  been 
repealed,  and  still  the  duties  remain  as  high  as  they  ever 
were.  Mr.  Merrill  said  in  1870  :  "  Protection  has  here  no 
legitimate  claims,  and  it  may  be  taken  off  whenever  direct 
taxes  are  repealed  and  less  revenue  is  desired."  Two  years 
before  Mr.  N.  P.  Banks,  then  a  member  of  the  Committee 
on  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
thought  that  the  time  had  come  when  the  duties  must  be 
taken  off.  Many  New  England  manufacturers  agreed  with 
htm,  and  they  prepared  a  scheme  of  reduction  in  which 
they  stated  what  their  business  could  stand.  Mr.  Banks 
stated,  on  the  floor  of  the  House,  that  the  manufacturers 
consented  to  a  reduction  of  from  23  to  25  per  cent. 

But  the  reduction  was  not  made.  On  the  contrary,  duties 
were  increased,  and  three  or  four  years  ago  there  was 
another  popular  clamor  for  the  lowering  of  tariff  taxes. 
This  time  the  country  was  given  a  commission,  and  revision 
was  put  off  a  year.  The  Commission  reported  that  the  best 
conservative  business  interests  of  the  country  demanded  a 
reduction  of  duties  of  from  20  to  25  per  cent.  Congress 
passed  a  bill  that  reduced  duties  from  5  to  6  per  cent,  and 
now  when  the  attempt  is  made  to  effect  a  reduction  that 
shall  fully  satisfy  the  best  conservative  opinion  of  the 
country,  the  protectionists  announce  that  they  are  in  favor 
of  maintaining  the  existing  high  rates,  and  of  a  tariff  for  the 
sake  of  the  protection  it  affords.  It  is  significant  that  they 


OUR  UNJUST   TARIFF  LAW.  15 

betray  a  consciousness  of  the  growing  weakness  of  their 
cause  by  a  change  of  opinion  as  to  the  beneficiaries  of  their 
system.  Formerly  protection  was  for  the  purpose  of  build- 
ing up  manufactures ;  now  they  profess  it  is  for  keeping  up 
the  wages  of  American  laborers. 

From  all  that  has  been  said  it  will  be  seen  that  there  have 
been  substantially  two  periods  when  the  protective  senti- 
ment prevailed  in  Congress.  The  first  was  during  the  early 
days  of  the  government,  and  the  appeal  was  for  the  building 
up  of  manufactures.  The  second  began  with  the  war,  and 
during  this  period  a  high  protective  tariff  was  fastened  on 
the  country  for  the  purpose  of  raising  a  revenue  made 
necessarily  large  by  the  demands  of  the  war.  The  average 
duty  before  the  revision  was  40.52  per  cent;  the  revision 
made  it  38.14  per  cent,  according  to  a  calculation  made 
by  the  Bureau  of  Statistics. 

From  time  to  time  this  high  tariff  has  been  attacked,  but 
from  one  cause  or  another  it  has  escaped.  After  1873  the 
protectionists  begged  that  Congress  should  not  disturb 
them  while  trade  was  depressed ;  in  1882  the  plea  was  that 
business  was  too  prosperous  to  permit  of  the  "agitation  of 
the  tariff  question."  But  the  attack  this  time  was  in  earn- 
est, and  the  protectionists  resorted  to  the  commission 
scheme,  under  which  a  revision  was  made.  Now  that  this 
revision  is  known  to  be  unsatisfactory,  and  that  protection 
must  fight  for  existence,  the  position  of  its  advocates  is 
boldly  announced.  They  are  for  protection  for  the  sake  of 
protection.  They  appeal  to  the  country  on  the  proposition 
that  it  is  right  to  tax  the  people  on  an  average  about  40  per 
cent  on  every  article  in  the  long  list  of  the  tariff  law,  in 
order  that  certain  manufacturers  may  add  that  40  per  cent 
to  the  price  of  their  products. 


16  OUR  UNJUST  TARIFF  LAW. 

II. 

WHAT  IS  "A  TARIFF  FOR  REVENUE  ONLY"? 

THEKE  is  no  doubt  that  a  large  part  of  the  revenues  of 
tliis  country  must  continue  to  be  raised  from  tariff  duties. 
No  one  denies  this,  and  no  one  desires  to  repeal  all  tariff 
taxes,  unless  it  be  some  impracticable  person  whose  desires 
and  whose  influence  are  in  inverse  ratio.  The  public  men 
who  are  falsely  called  "free  traders,"  believe  that  the  sys- 
tem of  tariff  taxation  should  be  changed  gradually;  that 
taxes  should  be  at  once  reduced,  but  that  the  reduction 
should  be  made  in  such  a  way  that  no  industry  should  un- 
necessarily suffer.  If  John  Smith,  for  example,  has  invested 
$100,000  in  a  manufacturing  business  because  the  law  pro- 
mises to  give  him  support  and  profit,  no  one  desires  to  take 
his  prop  away  suddenly.  He  will  have  plenty  of  time  to 
look  about  for  something  —  say,  more  enterprise  and  a  larger 
market  —  to  take  the  place  of  the  taxes  which  have  hitherto 
been  imposed  upon  the  people  for  his  benefit. 

The  end  to  be  reached  by  revenue  reform  is  very  clear. 
If  a  new  start  were  to  be  made,  those  who  are  revenue  re- 
formers would  object  to  any  protective  duties.  What  that 
means  is  this :  They  would  advocate  rates  that  would  yield 
the  amount  of  revenue  needed  by  the  government.  Every 
tariff  tax  is  of  course  a  burden  on  commerce.  If  the  aver- 
age rate  were  what  it  was  under  the  tariff  of  1789,  —  8J 
per  cent,  —  the  manufacturer  in  this  country  would  have 
just  that  much  advantage  over  his  French  or  English 
competitor.  Mr.  Russell,  of  Massachusetts,  says  that  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  incidental  protection  ;  that  all  protection 
that  is  not  actually  contemplated  by  the  law  is  simply  acci- 
dental. This  is  the  necessary  position  of  all  protectionists 


OUR    UNJUST   TARIFF    LAW.  17 

who  favor  the  present  high  rate  of  duty.  In  insisting  on 
its  maintenance  they  must  demand  protection  for  the  sake 
of  protection.  We  know  what  the  protectionists'  idea  of 
protection  is.  It  is  to  keep  up  taxes  to  the  highest  point 
procurable  from  Congress.  Therefore  they  oppose  every 
attempt  at  reduction,  no  matter  how  little  the  proposed 
decrease  of  taxation  may  be.  They  certainly  would  not  be 
satisfied  witli  a  tax  just  sufficient  to  meet  the  expenditures 
of  the  government,  although — tax  or  no  tax  —  the  manufac- 
turer in  this  country  is  protected  against  his  European  com- 
petitor by  three  thousand  miles  of  ocean  carriage,  the  cost 
of  which  the  importer  must  add  to  the  price  of  his  goods. 
Therefore  the  manufacturer  of  this  country  has  always  some 
protection  against  the  foreigner.  No  duty  can  be  collected 
that  does  not  raise  the  price  somewhat.  But  what  the 
revenue  reformer  would  insist  on,  were  the  whole  question  to 
come  before  him  as  original,  i.  e.,  if  the  country  were  about 
to  begin  to  make  a  tariff  law,  would  be  that  the  taxes,  tariff 
as  well  as  direct,  should  be  levied  for  public  purposes  ex- 
clusively. 

Now,  however,  the  question  presented  is  different.  The 
protective  tariff  laws  that  have  been  enacted  under  one 
pretext  or  another  since  1860  have  induced  men  to  invest 
money  in  manufacturing  enterprises.  These  men,  or  many 
of  them,  have  already  suffered  serious  losses  by  reason  of 
the  very  law  for  the  continuance  of  which  they  beg ;  but 
there  is  no  doubt  that  many  manufacturers  would  be  finan- 
cially ruined  by  the  sudden  and  entire  removal  of  the  pro- 
tective prop.  Therefore  no  one  proposes  to  take  away  alto- 
gether, and  at  once,  what  they  receive  from  the  people, 
because  it  has  been  given  to  them  by  the  representatives  of 
the  people,  who  were,  it  is  true,  filled  with  the  vague  and 
unwholesome  doctrine  of  protection,  but  who,  nevertheless, 
were  really  the  representatives,  and  whose  action  had  been 


18  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

indorsed  by  the  voters,  so  far  as  their  retention  in  Con- 
gress, for  many  prominent  reasons,  can  be  considered  an 
indorsement  of  a  dogma  that  has  not  been  made  prominent 
at  all. 

The  action  of  the  protective  system  is  almost  invariable. 
Men  of  large  capital  invest  in  a  "business.  It  may  be  in 
manufacturing,  or  it  may  be  in  wool-growing.  They  find 
either  that  they  cannot  make  the  business  pay  at  all,  or  that 
it  does  not  pay  as  great  an  interest  as  they  think  ought  to 
be  returned  to  them  from  their  investment.  They  go  to 
Congress  for  assistance.  Sometimes  they  send  agents  bear- 
ing petitions ;  sometimes  they  secure  the  election  to  Con- 
gress of  some  one  or  two  of  their  own  number.  Finally 
they  obtain  protection,  and  they  are  enabled  to  add  to  the 
price  of  the  articles  which  they  manufacture  or  grow  from 
10  to  100  per  cent.  The  result  is  that,  for  a  time,  the  busi- 
ness becomes  enormously  profitable,  and  a  large  number  of 
other  people  engage  in  it.  Some  of  these  people  have  little 
capital.  In  the  course  of  time  comes  the  natural  end  of  an 
unduly  profitable  business,  of  a  disproportionately  stimulated 
trade.  If  the  business  is  wool-growing,  too  many  farmers 
raise  sheep ;  if  it  be  manufacturing,  too  many  mills  are 
built.  The  result  can  be  foreseen  by  everyone  except 
those  whose  money  is  invested,  and  they  are  blinded  by  the 
statute  book,  in  which  is  printed  the  promise  that  the  govern- 
ment will  provide  them  with  profits  out  of  the  pockets  of 
the  people.  The  market  becomes  glutted  with  wool,  or 
with  the  products  of  the  mills,  and  the  price  falls.  It  con- 
tinues to  fall  because  there  is  no  demand  for  the  goods, 
which  cannot  be  sent  abroad  to  seek  a  foreign  market,  as 
the  general  system  of  protection  has  increased  the  cost  of 
production  so  much  that  competition  with  foreign  products 
in  their  own  markets,  is  out  of  the  question.  Then  the  small 
farmers  or  manufacturers  fail,  while  the  capitalists  close  their 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  19 

mills,  or  lock  up  their  wool  and  wait.  While  they  are 
waiting  their  laborers  go  without  employment,  and  the 
farmer  who  raises  produce  suffers  again  because  the  work- 
ing-men have  no  money  with  which  to  pay  for  the  food 
needed  by  them  and  their  families. 

For  example :  A  and  B  buy  10,000  sheep  and  determine 
to  grow  wool.  This  is  in  1860,  before  the  wool  tariff  was 
enacted.  They  do  not  make  as  much  money  as  they  think 
they  ought  to  make,  and  they  get  a  tax  of  from  5  to  25  per 
cent  levied  on  their  fellow  citizens  in  order  that  their  busi- 
ness may  be  rendered  profitable.  The  tax  is  levied  on 
foreign  wools  and  increases  their  price,  so  that  the  price 
on  American  wool  may  be  also  increased.  The  increase 
makes  the  business  profitable,  and  the  farmer  neighbors  of 
A  and  B,  who  are  not  so  rich  as  the  wool-growers,  deter- 
mine that  they  will  embark  in  the  business  into  which  the 
government  has  entered  as  a  partner.  So  they  buy  50  or 
100  sheep  each  and  greatly  increase  the  aggregate  number. 
This  is  all  supposed  to  occur  in  a  very  simple -and  small 
country.  Soon  there  is  more  wool  in  the  market  town  than 
the  people  want.  The  poorer  farmers  cannot  afford  to  re- 
main without  the  money  which  they  had  expected  to 
receive  from  their  crops.  They  therefore  sell  for  what 
they  can  get  and  are  ruined.  In  the  meantime  A  and  B 
are  waiting  and  refusing  to  sell  their  wool.  They  are  re- 
warded in  the  end  by  receiving  a  high  price  for  their  pro- 
duct, their  poorer  contemporaries  having  been  driven  out  of 
competition,  and  the  demand  for  wool  having  revived.  But, 
in  the  meantime,  the  whole  company,  rich  and  poor,  pros- 
perous and  bankrupted,  go  to  the  government  for  more 
"protection,"  and  the  government  kindly  levies  another  tax 
on  the  people  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  persist  in  raising 
sheep  for  their  wool,  when  they  ought  to  be  growing  grass 
or  grain. 


20  OUR  UNJUST  TARIFF  LAW. 

This  is  the  old  and  familiar  story  of  protective  tariffs.  It 
is  recognized  as  familiar  by  all  who  are  acquainted  with  the 
subject.  The  revenue  reformers  believe  tfcat  not  only  has 
the  government  no  right  to  tax  the  people  for  the  benefit  of 
private  persons,  but  that  business  fostered  in  this  artificial 
way  has  an  unnatural  growth.  It  may  reach  prosperity,  as 
many  of  our  manufacturing  concerns  have  attained  a  solid 
basis,  but  the  advance  is  through  disaster,  the  loss  of  capital, 
the  crushing  out  of  many  men  who  are  unable  to  stand  the 
ups  and  downs  of  an  unnatural  growth  and  expansion  of 
business,  and  the  destruction  of  other  legitimate  enterprises. 
Under  the  first  laws  there  are  commercial  disasters,  but  such 
disasters  in  a  "  protected  "  country  are  not  only  the  more 
numerous,  but  the  more  difficult  to  recover  from. 

It  is  for  the  sake  of  preventing  the  crushing  out  of  well- 
established  industries,  as  well  as  of  those  that  are  still  strug- 
gling for  existence,  that  revenue  reformers  are  desirous  of 
reaching  their  end  slowly.  They  are  not  dealing  with  an 
original  question,  but  they  are  applying  a  remedy  to  a  body 
politic  that  is,  economically,  very  ill.  They  believe  that  a 
wholesome  system  of  taxation  confines  the  revenue  to  the 
needs  of  the  government.  They  are  strongly  opposed  to  a 
system  that  puts  a  tax  on  foreign  goods  into  the  treasury, 
and  at  the  same  time  permits  a  private  citizen  to  levy 
another  tax  for  his  own  benefit  on  his  own  product.  They 
propose  to  give  the  country  such  a  system  in  the  end ;  but 
they  propose  to  reach  that  end  conservatively  and  with  the 
least  possible  injury  to  existing  interests. 

The  revenue  reformers  begin  by  asserting  that  the  exist- 
ing rates  of  duty  are  too  high;  not  merely  that  they  are 
protective.  They  say  that  many  of  them  are  prohibitory,  so 
that  no  revenue  is  derived  from  them.  The  protectionists 
will  answer,  if  they  are  honest  in  their  assertions  in  favor  of 
their  system,  that  they  are  glad  of  this ;  that  they  want 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  21 

foreign  goods  kept  out  of  our  markets  entirely,  so  that  our 
own  citizens  may  make  whatever  we  need,  no  matter  what 
may  be  the  cost  to  the  consumer. 

For  example:  Suppose  that  A  and  B  are  alone  in  the 
world.  A  makes  clothes  rapidly  and  well,  and  B  is  a  farmer 
and  produces  food.  Naturally,  one  would  suppose  that  A 
would  make  B's  clothes  and  take  B's  food  products  in 
exchange,  but  they  are  too  wise  to  obey  the  laws  of 
nature,  so  they  adopt  the  policy  of  protection.  A  proposes 
to  raise  all  he  wants  to  eat  himself  as  well  as  to  make  all  the 
clothes  he  wears,  and  B  insists  on  doing  likewise.  Now  if 
A  made  clothes  for  both,  and  B  raised  food  for  both,  each 
man  would  work  a  rational  number  of  hours  every  day,  and 
the  two  might  have  a  good  deal  of  leisure  which  they  might 
spend  in  pleasure  or  intellectual  improvement,  as  they 
chose.  This  leisure  is  wealth;  for  what  more  can  wealth 
bring  to  its  possessors  ?  As  it  is,  however,  they  have  en- 
slaved themselves.  When  they  get  through  their  work  in 
the  fields,  they  cannot  sit  down  to  rest ;  they  must  go  to 
work  to  make  clothes  for  themselves. 

But  to  return.  The  revenue  reformers  say  that  the  rates  of 
the  present  tariff  are  too  high  for  any  purpose,  protective  or 
otherwise.  They  say  that  the  tax  levied  by  the  government 
for  the  benefit  of  manufacturers  gives  to  some  of  the  favored 
class  an  unduly  great  profit.  They  are  assisted  by  the  law 
not  only  to  exist,  but  to  attain  an  enormous  prosperity  at 
the  expense  of  people  who  do  not  desire  any  benefit  from 
their  existence,  but  upon  whom  they  rest  as  a  burden. 

This  is  the  immediate  proposition  before  the  country. 
The  question  is  not,  Shall  we  have  free  trade?  No  one 
wants  that  now  or  ever,  if  by  free  trade  is  meant  the  repeal 
of  all  customs  duties.  The  question  is,  Shall  we  begin  the 
work  of  establishing  a  rational  system  of  taxation,  by  cutting 
down  the  rates  that  are  confessed,  even  by  protectionists,  to 


22  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

be  too  high.  The  manufacturers  themselves  confessed  it  in 
1868,  through  their  spokesman  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, Mr.  N.  P.  Banks.  The  senators  and  representatives 
who  are  now  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  present  rates  con- 
fessed it  in  1870  in  Congress.  The  whole  body  of  protec- 
tionists confessed  it  when  they  voted  for  the  bill  creating  a 
tariff  commission.  And  that  commission  confessed  it  in  the 
following  language :  — 

"Early  in  its  deliberations  the  commission  became  convinced  that 
a  substantial  reduction  of  tariff  duties  is  demanded,  not  by  a  mere 
indiscriminate  popular  clamor,  but  by  the  best  conservative  opinion 
of  the  country,  including  that  which  has  in  former  times  been  most 
strenuous  for  the  preservation  of  our  national  industrial  defences.  .  .  . 
"The  average  reduction  in  rates,  including  that  from  the  enlarge- 
ment of  the  free  list  arid  the  abolition  of  the  duties  on  charges  and 
commissions,  at  which  the  commission  has  arrived,  is  not  less,  on 
the  average,  than  20  per  cent,  and  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  commission 
that  the  reduction  will  reach  25  per  cent." 

The  revenue  reformers  say  that  the  revision  was  a  sham. 
In  his  closing  speech  on  the  motion  to  strike  out  the  enact- 
ing clause  of  his  bill,  Mr.  Morrison  exposed  the  jugglery  of 
the  report  of  the  conference  committee,  which  was  passed 
by  both  Houses  of  Congress,  and  is  now  the  law.  He 
said :  — 

"  Out  of  one  of  the  rates  fixed  or  clauses  made  in  the  last  tariff  bill 
by  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  and  his  associates,  experts  who  have  made 
all  the  tariffs  since  1860,  I  am  told  15,000  protests  have  already  come 
and  15,000  lawsuits  may  follow.  So  it  would  appear  that  there  is 
something  defective,  more  or  less  imperfect,  in  all  tariff  bills.  And 
dread  confusion  haunts  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  because  the  duty  on 
grindstones  is  to  be  lowered.  He  came  confused  from  yonder  con- 
ference-room, where  he  was  a  member  of  the  conference  committee, 
to  the  confusion  of  all  taxpayers.  The  office  and  duty  of  a  conference 
is  to  adjust  the  difference  between  the  two  disagreeing  Houses.  This 
House  had  decided  that  bar-iron  of  the  middle  class  was  to  pay  820 
a  ton;  the  Senate  that  it  was  to  pay  $20.16  a  ton.  The  gentlemen  of 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  23 

the  conference,  including  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  reconciled  this 
difference  —  how  ?  By  raising  bar-iron  above  both  House  and  Senate 
to  $22.40  a  ton.  The  Tariff  Commission,  at  the  end  of  its  deliberations, 
reported  that  the  tariff  on  iron  ore  should  be  50  cents  a  ton.  The 
Senate  said  that  it  should  be  50  cents  a  ton.  The. House  said  it  should 
be  50  cents  a  ton.  Gentlemen  of  the  conference  committee,  including 
the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  neither  indolent  nor  wanting  in  capacity 
of  a  kind,  reconciled  the  agreement  of  the  House,  Senate,  and  Tariff 
Commission  into  a  disagreement,  where  there  was  none,  and  made  the 
duty  on  ore  75  cents  a  ton.  The  gentlemen  of  the  conference  did  a 
similar  service  for  the  great  corporation  of  corporations,  the  Iron  and 
Steel  Association,  by  giving  it  a  tax  of  $17  on  steel  rails,  which  the 
House  fixed  at  §15  and  the  Senate  at  $15.68  per  ton.  In  all  this  there 
is  no  confession  of  want  of  capacity,  but  an  exhibition  of  it  which 
commends  itself  to  the  gentleman  from  Ohio.  It  is  such  an  exhibition 
of  talent  and  special  fitness  as  in  Ohio  would  be  a  breach  of  public 
trust  and  drive  him  from  an  honorable  profession.  Here  it  is  states- 
manship. It  gives  bounty  to  corporations  and  royalty  to  mine-owners. 
It  adds  to  the  burdens  of  the  people,  who  are  mocked  with  the  pre- 
tence that  it  protects  labor.  The  more  of  such  evidences  of  capacity 
as  were  exhibited  in  that  conference,  of  which  the  gentleman  from 
Ohio  was  a  distinguished  member,  that  might  be  shown  in  this  hori- 
zontal bill,  the  more  infamous  it  would  be,  and  the  less  support  it 
ought  to  have.  These  gentlemen  who  come  here  from  Iowa,  Wiscon- 
sin, and  Michigan,  pledged  to  abate  something  from  taxes  taken  from 
the  people  to  go  into  a  treasury  already  full,  come  as  the  representatives 
of  a  people  who  believe  the  Tariff  Commission  scheme  was  a  sham  and 
a  cheat,  devised  to  maintain  and  not  to  reduce  taxes.  And  now  they 
are  here,  and  the  chief  financial  officer  of  the  government  tells  them 
(whether  it  is  a  cheat  or  not)  that  this  scheme  has  not  reduced  taxes 
as  it  was  promised  they  should  be  reduced  —  as  all  advocates  of  the 
commission  plan  promised  they  should  be  reduced. 

The  average  rate  of  duty  under  the  old  law  was  40.52  per 
cent ;  under  the  present  law  it  is  about  38.14.  If  the  re- 
vised law  had  really  reduced  the  rates  as  much  as  the  com- 
mission recommended,  the  average  rate  would  now  be  30.39. 
This  was  the  rate  admitted  to  be  just  by  every  protectionist 
who  favored  the  commission's  report,  and  not  one  friend 
of  the  protected  interests  was  heard  to  protest  against  the 


24  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

measure.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know  how  many  men 
in  the  country,  and  who,  were  acquainted  with  the  fact  that 
the  revised  law  would  not  reduce  taxation.  This,  however, 
is  now  certain,  that  when  they  know  that  taxation  has  not 
been  reduced  to  the  point  which  they  admitted  to  be  just, 
they  refuse  to  consent  to  a  further  reduction  which  would 
make  taxation  more  nearly  what  was  promised  in  the  names 
both  of  the  Tariff  Commission  and  of  the  Ways  and  Means 
bills  in  the  Forty-seventh  Congress.  For  it  should  be  recol- 
lected that  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  present 
Congress  reported  a  bill  to  the  House  of  Representatives 
which  proposed  to  carry  out  the  promises  made  in  the  last 
Congress ;  but  the  average  rate  of  the  Morrison  bill  was  31.17 
per  cent,  almost  one  per  cent  more  than  the  rate  admitted 
to  be  high  enough  by  the  protectionists  only  a  year  before. 

The  revenue  reformers  say  that  when  a  man  buys  a  dol- 
lar's worth  of  cotton  goods,  40  to  56  cents  of  it  is  too  much 
to  pay  to  the  government ;  that  when  a  woman  buys  woollen 
stuff  for  a  dress,  68  cents  is  too  much  to  give  the  govern- 
ment ;  that  50  cents  is  too  much  to  pay  on  every  dollar's 
worth  of  sugar  that  goes  into  family  consumption.  The 
protectionists  insist  that  these  high  taxes  shall  be  main- 
tained. This  is  the  present  status  of  the  controversy.  The 
revenue  reformers  say  that  the  government  ought  to  begin 
the  reduction  of  tariff  taxation  ;  the  protectionists  say  that 
the  present  taxes  ought  to  be  maintained. 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  25 

III. 

SOME  OF  THE  EVILS  OF  THE  PRESENT  TARIFF 

THE  present  tariff  law  was  enacted  March  3,  1883.  The 
pretence  was  that  it  was  not  only  a  revision  of  the  law  as  it 
then  stood,  but  a  reform  in  the  direction  of  lower  duties. 
This  is  not  true,  as  the  statement  of  a  few  facts  will  show. 
In  the  first  place,  as  already  shown,  the  average  rate  of  duty 
collected  under  the  old  law  was  40.52  per  cent ;  under  the 
present  law  it  is  38.14  per  cent. 

Most  of  the  articles  consumed  by  those  who  are  not  rich 
are  taxed  more  heavily  under  the  new  than  under  the  old 
law.  And  some  of  this  increased  taxation  was  very  cun- 
ningly devised. 

For  example :  The  rate  on  the  coarsest  kinds  of  plain 
cottons,  worth  a  little  more  than  12  cents  a  yard,  was  re- 
duced from  39.91  per  cent  to  19.95  per  cent;  on  these  goods 
bleached,  the  rate  was  reduced  from  48.81  to  31.07  per  cent; 
if  dyed,  colored,  stained,  painted,  or  printed,  the  rate  was 
reduced  from  47.24  to  28.05.  These  prints  are  worth  about 
16  cents  a  square  yard.  On  prints  of  a  little  higher 
quality,  worth  a  little  more  than  16  cents,  the  rate  was  re- 
duced from  56.19  per  cent  to  30.88  per  cent.  Of  the  prints 
of  the  first  kind  there  were  imported  in  1883  only  390,906 
square  yards.  Most  of  the  goods  of  tHis  quality  which  are 
consumed  here  are  manufactured  in  this  country.  But  when 
cotton  goods  that  make  the  best  wear  of  the  poorer  people 
are  reached,  there  is  an  increase  of  rate  from  35  to  40  per 
cent.  Of  prints  that  are  worth  more  than  20  cents  a  square 
yard,  there  were  imported,  in  1883,  4,841,664  yards.  All 
the  laces  that  are  used  by  people  who  are  not  rich  are  of 
cotton,  and  on  these  and  embroideries,  insertings,  trimmings, 


26  OUR    UNJUST    TARIFF   LAW. 

lace  window  curtains,  cotton  damask,  hemmed  handkerchiefs, 
and  cotton  velvet,  the  rate  was  increased  by  the  revised  law 
from  35  to  40  per  cent.  By  a  change  in  the  schedules 
which  may  or  may  not  have  been  understood  by  the  manu- 
facturers, the  duties  on  certain  grades  of  cotton  goods  were 
greatly  increased  from  the  old  ad  valorem  rate  of  35  per 
cent.  The  rate  on  black  crinoline  lining,  for  example,  was 
increased  to  an  average  of  111  per  cent;  and  that  on  tarla- 
tans to  an  average  of  103  per  cent.  On  one  grade  of  linings 
the  rate  is  as  high  as  148  per  cent,  and  on  one  grade  of 
tarlatan  it  reaches  153  per  cent. 

The  rate  on  dress  goods  made  in  part  of  wool,  valued  at 
more  than  20  cents  a  square  yard,  was  reduced  from  8  cents 
and  40  per  cent  to  7  cents  and  40  per  cent ;  this  changed 
the  ad  valorem  rate  from  68.45  to  64.89  per  cent.  Therefore 
if  the  wife  of  a  farmer  or  working-man  now  desires  to  pur- 
chase a  dress  of  stuff  partly  wool,  worth  in  England  25  cents 
a  yard,  she  must  pay  in  this  country  42  cents  ;  the  17  cents 
going  as  a  tax  to  the  government  or  as  a  bounty  to  the 
manufacturer.  But  it  is  well  known  that  the  best  wear  of 
people  who  are  not  rich  is  "  all-wool  "  goods.  The  rate  of 
duty  on  these  goods  was  increased  by  the  revision  from  8 
cents  and  40  per  cent  to  9  cents  and  40  per  cent.  No  one 
can  tell  how  much  this  increased  the  ad  valorem  rate,  for  it 
stopped  importations.  A  person  who  buys  American  all- 
wool  dress  goods,  like  those  which  could  be  bought  abroad 
for  40  cents  a  yard,  must  pay  at  least  62  cents  a  yard  for 
them  in  this  country. 

In  the  metal  schedule  there  are  many  curiosities.  Cast- 
iron  vessels,  plates,  stove  plates,  andirons,  sadirons,  tailors' 
irons,  hatters'  irons,  and  castings  of  iron,  used  to  pay  a  rate 
of  duty  of  32.64  per  cent;  under  the  revised  and  reformed 
law  the  rate  is  104.01  per  cent. 

The  crockery  trade  sells  painted  and  printed  earthen  and 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  27 

stone  ware,  which  is  very  cheap,  and  is  used  by  the  poorest 
people  in  the  country.  Some  of  this  crockery  is  so  cheap 
that  it  is  made  for  the  southern  negro  trade.  Every  one 
lias  seen  the  children's  plates,  with  an  alphabet  around  the 
rim,  and  a  picture  in  the  centre.  This  picture  is  first 
printed  and  then  painted,  the  painting  being  very  rude,  and 
done  in  the  crudest  way  by  women  and  children.  Forty 
per  cent  on  this  class  of  work  was  not  enough  for  these 
revisers,  who  thought  that  the  conservative  opinion  of  the 
country  demanded  lower  duties  ;  so  they  increased  the  rate 
to  60  per  cent,  and  classified  this  coarse  ware  with  china, 
porcelain,  parian  and  bisque,  that  was  ornamented.  Plain 
china,  porcelain,  parian,  and  bisque,  which  can  be  afforded 
by  the  rich  only,  pays  a  lower  duty  and  bounty  than  the 
stone  cups  of  the  poor,  and  even  plain  white  stone  ware 
pays  as  much  as  plain  white  porcelain.  And  yet  the  country 
is  assured  by  men  who  are  generally  considered  honest  that 
the  present  tariff  is  for  the  benefit  of  American  working- 
men. 

So  much  for  the  pretended  reform  made  by  the  revision. 
There  are  other  features  of  the  law  that  are  interesting  to 
people  who  work  with  their  hands  for  a  living.  Ready-made 
clothing  pays  40  cents  a  pound  and  35  per  cent.  A  rich 
man  sends  to  a  London  tailor  for  clothes,  for  which  the 
charge  is  $50 ;  a  poor  man  buys  in  this  country  a  suit  which  he 
could  buy  abroad  for  $20.  Assuming  that  each  suit  weighs 
five  pounds,  the  rich  man  pays  the  government  a  tax  of  39 
per  cent,  while  the  poor  man  pays  the  American  manufac- 
turer a  bounty  of  45  per  cent,  and'  he  pays  $29  for  what 
ought  to  have  cost  him  $20.  If  a  poor  man  buys  a  coarse 
woollen  blanket,  worth  54  cents  per  pound,  he  pays  60  per 
cent  to  the  government  or  the  manufacturer.  If  a  rich  man 
buys  a  blanket  worth  $1.50  a  pound,  he  pays  no  more  tax  or 
bounty  than  the  poor  man.  The  average  rate  on  the  low- 


28  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF  LAW. 

priced  flannels,  blankets,  wool  hats,  etc.,  is  68.77  per  cent; 
on  the  highest-priced,  62.08. 

A  drugget  or  blocking  pays  a  duty  of  72.18  per  cent; 
but  an  Axminster  carpet  pays  only  55.52  per  cent. 

Halter-chains,  trace-chains,  and  fence-chains,  that  are  used 
by  the  farmers,  and  are  worth  about  five  cents  a  pound,  pay 
about  47.14  per  cent,  while  finer  chains  pay  45.41.  The 
finest  salt  pays  less  than  40  per  cent,  while  the  coarse  salt 
used  for  preserving  meats,  feeding  cattle,  etc.,  pays  a  little 
less  than  64£  per  cent. 

Sugar,  which  must  be  used  by  every  one,  pays  a  duty  of 
from  50  to  68.20  per  cent;  and  this  highest,  duty  is  on  a 
grade  of  sugar  that  can  be  consumed  without  refining,  and 
the  use  of  which,  were  the  duty  lower,  might  therefore  save 
the  poorer  people  of  the  country  an  immense  sum  of  money 
every  year. 

But  the  protectionists  object  to  reducing  the  rates  of 
duty.  They  say  that  to  do  so  would  lower  wages.  In  due 
time  this  will  be  demonstrated  to  be  arrant  nonsense  or 
deliberate  falsehood.  Protection  to  American  industries 
was  first  granted  for  the  purpose  of  giving  a  profit  to  the 
capitalists  who  invested  their  money  in  manufacturing  en- 
terprises. AVages  must  be  higher  in  this  country  than  in 
England  so  long  as  agricultural  land  is  as  cheap  as  it  is, 
and  agricultural  labor  as  remunerative.  The  protectionists 
threaten  the  working-men  with  reduced  wages  if  they  vote 
to  relieve  themselves  from  burdensome  taxes;  but,  while 
they  are  making  their  threats,  they  do  lower  wages,  even 
under  a  protective  system,  with  whose  generous  bounty 
they  sometimes  profess  themselves  satisfied.  There  is  no 
better  protected  industry  than  that  of  iron  and  steel,  and 
yet  its  revived  prosperity,  which  began  in  1879  with  the 
general  financial  revival  of  the  country,  lasted  only  three 
years.  The  report  of  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Asso- 


OUR  UNJUST   TARIFF  LAW.  29 

elation  shows  that  nearly  all  the  mills  closed  in  1882,  and 
that  during  the  four  months  when  they  were  idle  the  opera- 
tives were  the  losers.  The  prices  of  iron  and  steel  did  not 
advance  because  there  was  enough  material  on  hand  to 
supply  the  demand.  This  means  that  under  the  artificial 
stimulus  of  protection  the  mills  produced  more  than  was 
needed.  It  was  simply  a  new  illustration  of  a  well-estab- 
lished fact.  Protection  always  leads  to  over-production, 
and  when  that  happens  the  capitalists  stop  expenses,  sell 
their  surplus,  and  meanwhile  the  operatives  starve  or  get 
into  debt.  Judging  from  the  reports  that  come  from  the 
iron  regions  at  this  writing,  the  iron  and  steel  industry  is  in 
as  bad  condition  as  it  was  two  summers  ago,  when  nearly 
all  the  rolling-mills  of  Pittsburg  and  the  West  were  closed 
for  four  months. 

The  statistics  relative  to  hoop  iron,  bar  iron,  iron  rails, 
sugar,  and  molasses,  for  1880,  serve  admirably  to  show  the 
workings  of  the  present  tariff,  and  the  price  paid  by  the 
American  people  to  sustain  what  protectionists  call  the 
"American  system."  In  1880  there  were  produced  in  this 
country,  hoop  (band  and  scroll)  iron  to  the  value  of 
$6,094,484;  and  there  was  imported  $720,903.82  worth. 
The  domestic  product  cost  $62.67  a  ton ;  the  imported  ar- 
ticle cost  $45.56.  The  rate  of  duty  was  $31.66.  The  cost 
of  the  foreign  iron,  with  freight  added,  would  have  been 
$48.06,  so  that  the  consumer  was  obliged  to  pay  $14.61 
bounty  on  every  ton  of  American  hoop  iron  used  by  him ; 
and  the  total  bounty  paid  by  American  consumers  amounted 
to  $1,414,876.22.  From  these  figures  it  will  be  seen  that 
for  every  dollar  paid  to  the  treasury  as  duty,  the  American 
manufacturer  received  $2.82  bounty. 

In  the  same  year  the  production  of  bar  iron  in  this 
country  amounted  to  $35,302,431 ;  the  imports  to  $3,111,- 
218.43.  The  domestic  article  was  valued  at  $53.33  a  ton, 


30  OUE   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

the  foreign  at  $43.33.  Duty  was  $22.86,  and  the  cost  per 
ton  of  foreign  iron,  with  freight  added,  $45.83.  The  bounty 
of  the  manufacturer  was  $7.40  per  ton,  and  the  bounty  paid 
by  consumers  on  domestic  production  was  to  duty  received 
fby  the  Treasury  as  $2.99  is  to  $1. 

The  domestic  production  of  iron  rails  was  $20,978,637  ; 
imports,  $1,635,980 ;  cost,  $44.93  and  $31.10;  duty,  $15.68; 
cost  of  foreign  rails,  freight  added,  $33.60 ;  bounty,  $11.33 ; 
ratio  of  bounty  to  duty,  $6.41  to  $1. 

The  foreign  sugar  imported  into  this  country  in  1880  was 
worth  $68,052,639.55 ;  the  average  duty  per  pound  was  2.44 
cents.  The  value  of  the  domestic  product  was  $13,191,- 
200.02.  The  value  of  the  imported  molasses  was  $8,978,- 
008.50;  of  the  domestic  product,  $3,528,770.51.  On  the 
total  importation  of  sugar  and  molasses,  $77,030,648.05 ; 
the  duty  was  $42,203,915.49  ;  while  the  bounty  on  the  do- 
mestic product  was  $5,616,503.96.  For  $94,000,000  worth 
of  sugar  and  molasses  the  people  of  the  country  paid 
$142,000,000. 

These  are  some  of  the  enormities  of  the  present  tariff. 
The  man  who  consumes  the  products  of  our  own  mills,  or 
who  buys  the  imported  products  of  foreign  mills,  pays  for  all 
his  cottons  an  average  of  38.29  per  cent  more  than  the  goods 
are  worth  ;  on  his  wife's  woollen  shawl,  65.83  per  cent ;  on 
his  blankets,  wool  hats,  flannels,  knit  goods,  etc.,  about  67  per 
cent ;  on  his  carpets,  from  40  to  70  per  cent ;  for  all  the 
sugar  his  family  consumes,  about  50  per  cent ;  for  the  iron 
vessels  of  his  kitchen,  about  104  per  cent ;  for  his  knives 
and  forks,  35  per  cent ;  for  needles,  25  per  cent ;  for  the  pens 
with  which  he  writes,  50  per  cent ;  for  his  tin  utensils,  45 
per  cent;  for  his  wooden  furniture,  35  per  cent;  for  his 
other  woodenware,  the  same;  for  his  brown  earthenware, 
25  per  cent;  for  his  white  stoneware,  55  per  cent;  for  the 
slate  and  pencils  of  his  children,  30  per  cent ;  for  preserve 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


31 


jars,  35  per  cent  ;  for  his  common  window-glass,  from  66  to 
74  per  cent  ;  for  his  provisions,  an  average  of  21  per  cent. 

Suppose  a  man  in  moderate  means  wants  to  f  urnish  a  house. 
How  much,  under  the  present  tariff  law,  must  he  pay  for 
$1,000  worth  of  furniture?  Here  is  a  table  showing,  in  the* 
first  column  of  figures,  the  worth,  and  in  the  second  the 
price  to  be  paid  after  the  tariff  has  added  the  duty,  or 
bounty  :  — 


Wooden  Furniture         .... 

Carpets  ....... 

(§125  Tapestry  Brussels  and  $75  two- 

ply  ingrain) 
White  Stoneware  ..... 

Brown  Earthenware      .  .        . 

Iron  Kitchen  ware  ..... 

Tin         "  "  .... 

Woodenware  ...... 

Cutlery  ....... 


Wortlu 

$700.00 

200.00 


40.00 
10.00 
15.00 
15.00 
10.00 
10.00 


Price. 

$945.00 

298.83 


62.00 
12.50 
30.60 
21.75 
13.50 
13.50 


$1,000.00     $1,397.68 


A  bounty  of  $398  is  paid  by  the  consumer,  and  the  same 
fate  follows  him  through  life.  He  pays  more  for  all  that 
goes  to  the  feeding  and  clothing  of  his  family.  For  every 
$100  worth  of  cottons,  he  pays,  on  an  average,  $138.29;  for 
a  $10  woollen  shawl  he  pays  $16.58;  for  $20  worth  of  flan- 
nels he  pays  about  $33.40;  $10  worth  of  sugar  costs  him 
$15,  and  so  on  through  the  long  list  of  taxed  articles. 
When  he  is  born  his  sponsors  pay  $14  for  his  $10  silver 
mug,  and  when  he  dies  his  executors  take  from  his  widow 
$95  to  pay  for  a  $50  monument. 

The  protectionists  say  that  they  will  not  remedy  these 
evils;  that  they  will  not  consent  to  any  reduction  whatever. 
In  the  last  session  of  Congress  they  took  the  position  that 
they  would  not  debate  the  question,  they  would  not  con- 
sider it  ;  and  later,  when  they  were  forced  to  consider  it, 


32  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

they  refused  to  try,  by  offering  amendments,  to  take  any 
steps  to  make  a  good  bill.  The  refusal  of  the  protectionists  to 
vote  for  the  Morrison  bill  is  conclusive  evidence  that  they 
propose  to  do  nothing  for  the  relief  of  the  consumers.  They 
"refused  the  most  moderate  reductions,  —  to  cut  down  the 
duty  on  cotton  and  cotton  goods  from  88.29  per  cent  to  31.50  ; 
on  hemp,  jute,  and  flax  goods,  from  28.04  to  24.61 ;  on  wool 
and  woollens,  from  57.71  to  46.43 ;  on  metals,  from  35.19  to 
29.81  ;  on  books,  papers,  etc.,  from  21.67  to  18.51 ;  on  sugar 
and  molasses,  from  43.59  to  34.87  ;  on  tobacco,  from  72.70  to 
58.16;  on  wood  and  woodenware,  from  33.98  to  29.35;  on 
earthenware  and  glassware,  from  53.16  to  44.12 ;  on  provi- 
sions, from  24.17  to  21.01 ;  on  sundries,  from  25.46  to  22.60; 
on  chemical  products,  from  37.11  to  31.40. 

If  they  will  not  make  such  moderate  reductions  of  taxes, 
what  is  to  be  expected  from  them  ?  But  at  any  rate  the 
country  is  afforded  a  view  of  the  standard  of  taxation  that 
is  deemed  necessary  for  the  fostering  of  these  aged  infant 
industries.  The  conclusion  that  must  be  reached  is  that  the 
protectionists  propose  to  keep  all  the  benefits  they  have 
received,  and  to  secure  all  other  possible  advantages.  The 
tax  was  first  granted  to  meet  the  necessities  of  the  war ;  it 
has  been  preserved  because  it  is  said  to  be  needful  to  tax 
the  people  for  the  benefit  of  a  few  manufacturers  ;  and  now 
that  the  government's  surplus  reaches  to  the  neighborhood 
of  $100,000,000,  the  protectionists  refuse  to  yield  a  cent 
of  their  enormous  bounty. 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  33 

IV. 

WHAT  PROTECTION  MEANS  TO  THE  FARMER. 

OF  the  17,392,099  persons  engaged  in  wealth-producing 
occupations  in  1880,  7,670,493  were  agriculturists,  farmers, 
and  farm  laborers.  Almost  half  the  working  population  of 
the  country,  therefore,  drew  their  sustenance  from  the  soil. 
The  amount  of  capital  in  farms,  agricultural  implements,  and 
live-stock  is  very  large.  In  1880  it  was  $12,104,081,440, 
while  the  capital  invested  in  manufactures  was  only  $2,790,- 
272,606.  What  does  prol^tion  do  for  the  farmer  ? 

In  the  first  place  it  increases  the  cost  of  everything  he  is 
obliged  to  buy.  How  much  more  his  clothing,  his  groceries, 
his  household  furniture  and  utensils  cost,  has  already  been 
shown.  His  agricultural  implements  cost  him  at  least  half 
as  much  again  as  they  ought,  because  of  the  duties  which 
the  manufacturers  are  obliged  to  pay.  The  tariff  adds  25 
per  cent  to  the  cost  of  transporting  his  products  to  market. 
In  return  he  receives  a  duty  that  amounts  to  about  25  per 
cent  on  his  leading  staples,  and  which  he  does  not  need. 

The  American  farmer  is  the  one  producer  in  this  country 
who  is  compelled  to  sell  in  a  foreign  market.  Wheat  is  so 
largely  produced  that  our  own  population  cannot  consume 
it.  The  surplus  of  the  wheat  product  in  1883  was  more 
than  100,000,000  bushels.  This  surplus  is  sold  to  Europe,  so 
that  American  wheat  competes  with  the  wheat  of  the  world. 
Its  price  is  regulated  by  the  markets  of  Liverpool.  In  deter- 
mining the  price  at  which  he  will  sell  his  goods,  the  manu- 
facturer can  add  to  the  cost  of  foreign-made  goods  the 
freight  charge  across  the  ocean,  and  the  duty;  but  the 
farmer  must  deduct  freight  charges,  and  must  meet  the  Eu- 
ropean wheat  growers  on  their  own  ground.  The  result 


34  OUR   UNJUST    TARIFF   LAW. 

is  that  the  price  paid  for  wheat  in  Liverpool  determines  tLe 
price  paid  in  this  country.  The  20  cents  a  bushel  duty,  there- 
fore, does  no  good ;  it  is  never  collected  by  the  farmer  as  a 
bounty.  This  truth  about  wheat  comes  home  to  the  Ameri- 
can farmer  now  as  it  has  never  come  before.  The  increase 
in  the  wheat  product  of  India  has  become  astonishing.  Last 
year  40,000,000  of  bushels  of  wheat  were  exported  from 
India.  The  result  is  that  the  exportation  of  American 
cereals  has  greatly  decreased,  and  the  price  of  American 
wheat  has  fallen  below  80  cents  a  bushel. 

Now  the  question  which  the  American  farmer  has  to 
answer  is,  Can  he  go  on  paying  taxes  for  the  benefit  of  his 
neighbor,  the  manufacturer,  whifc  he  is  forced  to  sell  in  the 
cheapest  market  of  the  world  ?  Can  he  afford  to  burn  his 
candle  at  both  ends  ?  What  he  buys  costs  him  more  than 
similar  articles  cost  in  Europe,  and  yet  he  receives  per 
bushel  just  what  his  English  competitor  receives,  and  just 
what  is  received  by  his  Indian  competitor,  whose  clothes  con- 
sist of  a  single  yard  of  cotton.  The  average  farmer  is  not  a 
rich  man.  As  the  value  of  the  farm  products  of  the  United 
States  in  1880  was  $2,213,402,504,  while  the  persons  engaged 
in  farm  labor  numbered  7,670,493,  it  follows  that  the  aver- 
age income  of  farmers  and  farm  laborers  was  $289  a  year. 
To  the  ordinary  cost  of  living  must  be  added  the  $450,000,- 
000  which  the  farmers  pay  annually  in  taxes  and  bounties 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  business  of  their  manufacturing 
neighbors.  Can  the  farmers  afford  the  luxury  ? 

The  pretence  of  the  protectionists  is  that  the  establish- 
ment of  manufactures  furnishes  a  home  market.  On  the 
theory  of  the  protectionists  there  is  only  one  kind  of  a  home 
market  that  is  worth  anything.  It  is  a  market  from  which 
all  foreign  competition  is  excluded.  That  is  the  kind  of 
home  market  the  protected  manufacturers  desire  for  them- 
selves. In  their  speeches  at  the  last  session  of  Congress, 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  35 

they  said  that  they  favored  the  continuance  of  the  present 
high  rate  of  taxation  in  order  that  our  people  might  be  sup- 
plied with  everything  of  American  manufacture.  The  main 
object  of  the  protectionists  of  the  present  day  is  to  prohibit 
the  importation  of  foreign  goods.  In  other  words,  the  lead- 
ers of  the  protectionists  hold  that  it  is  right  for  the  govern- 
ment to  tax  the  people  in  order  to  prevent  revenue.  There- 
fore, when  a  perfect  tariff  law  shall  be  made,  the  large 
revenue  now  collected  by  the  custom  houses  will  go  entirely 
into  the  pockets  of  the  manufacturers,  and  the  government 
must  be  supported  by  direct  taxation;  internal  revenue 
taxes  must  be  increased  rather  than  diminished. 

But  the  American  farmer  cannot  have  this  kind  of  a  home 
market.  He  produces  too  much  for  the  country,  and,  in  the 
natural  order  of  things,  production  must  increase  rather  than 
diminish.  The  manufacturers'  promise  of  supplying  an  ade- 
quate home  market  has  not  been  kept.  Half  the  people  of 
the  country  pay  every  year  $450,000,000  for  a  market  which 
they  do  not  get,  and  for  higher  prices  which  they  do  not 
realize.  How  much  did  this  market  demand  in  1880,  the 
census  year?  The  people  engaged  in  manufacturing,  with 
all  those  employed  in  mechanic  and  mining  pursuits  added, 
consumed  only  $335,000,000  worth,  while  the  producers 
were  obliged  to  sell  abroad  $685,961,091  worth.  The  only 
result  of  the  protective  system  to  the  farmer  is  to  increase 
the  cost  of  living. 

Moreover,  statistics  show  that  the  proportion  of  our  crops 
consumed  at  home  has  been  greater  under  low  tariffs  than 
under  high  tariffs.  Under  the  low  tariff  of  1846,  in  the 
census  year  1850,  the  total  cereal  production  was  867,453,967 
bushels,  of  which  we  consumed  at  home  851,502,312  bushels, 
and  exported  15,951,655,  or  1.9  per  cent.  In  1860,  under 
the  still  lower'  tariff  of  1857,  the  production  was  1,239,039,- 
945  bushels,  of  which  the  home  market  purchased  1,216,- 


36  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

084,810  bushels,  and  22,955,135  bushels,  or  1.8  per  cent,  were 
exported.  In  1870,  under  a  high  protective  tariff,  the  total 
production  was  1,629,027,600  bushels ;  1,571,737,179  bushels 
were  consumed  in  this  country,  and  57,290,521  bushels,  or 
3.50  per  cent,  were  sent  abroad.  From  1850  to  1860  the 
production  of  grain  increased  45.1  per  cent,  while  the  exports 
increased  43.9  per  cent,  while  under  a  high  tariff  law,  from 
1860  to  1870,  production  increased  31.4  per  cent,  while  the 
exports  increased  149.50  per  cent. 

More  than  80  per  cent  of  the  exports  of  this  country  are 
of  agricultural  products.  There  is  no  complaint  made  by 
protectionists  because  the  farmers  are  obliged  to  compete 
with  the  freed  serfs  of  Russia  or  the  laborers  of  India.  On 
the  contrary,  our  farmers  are  asked  to  go  on  competing,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  put  their  hands  in  their  pockets  and 
pay  a  bounty  to  the  manufacturers,  in  order  that  their 
brother  working-men  who  prefer  to  labor  in  the  mills  may 
not  be  obliged  to  compete  with  the  British  operatives.  It 
is  not  true  that  the  wages  of  our  own  operatives  will  ever 
be  governed  by  the  wages  paid  in  Great  Britain  ;  nor  is  it 
true  that  the  protectionists  desire  high  tariff  taxes  for  the 
laborer,  for  they  are  looking  entirely  after  the  interests  of 
capital.  But,  leaving  all  that  aside  for  the  time,  is  it  fair 
to  ask  the  American  farmer  to  compete  with  lately  eman- 
cipated serfs  and  Indian  ryots  and  half-naked  Africans,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  tax  himself  to  prevent  the  operatives  of 
mills  from  coming  into  competition  with  the  skilled  laborers 
of  Great  Britain  ? 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  home  market  which  the  protec- 
tionists have  promised  has  not  been  furnished  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  manufactures ;  that  out  of  their  slender  incomes 
the  farmers  of  the  country  are  forced  to  contribute  to  the 
manufacturers  $450,000,000  annually.  What  is  the  result, 
to  the  manufacturers,  of  this  contribution,  and  what  to  the 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  37 

farmers  ?  In  1880  the  capital  invested  in  manufactures  was 
$2,790,272,606 ;  the  product  was  $5,369,579,191.  Deducting 
from  this  the  value  of  materials  used  and  the  wages  paid, 
we  have  a  gross  profit  of  $1,024,801,847,  or  between  36  and 
37  per  cent.  It  is  estimated  that  the  gross  profits  of  the 
farmers  is  $1,436,944,067,  which  is  between  11  and  12  per 
cent  on  the  capital,  $12,104,081,430,  invested  in  the  business 
of  agriculture.  It  is  strange  that  a  business  paying  the 
small  return  should  be  taxed  to  sustain  enterprises  whose 
profits  exceed  the  profits  of  its  benefactor  three  times.  The 
American  farmer  is  the  victim  of  a  bad  system,  and  a  deluded 
victim  whenever  he  votes  for  a  protectionist  for  Congress. 


V. 

WHAT  PROTECTION  MEANS  TO  THE  WORKING-MAN. 

• 

JUST  now  it  is  the  burden  of  the  protection  song  that 
American  labor  would  be  degraded  if  the  tariff  were  re- 
duced. On  the  contrary  the  laborers  of  the  country  would 
be  benefited.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  taxing  working-men 
does  not  benefit  them  unless  at  the  same  time  their  incomes 
are  increased  more  than  enough  to  make  up  the  tax.  The 
average  tax  imposed  by  the  existing  tariff  is  39  per  cent, 
but,  as  has  been  shown,  the  working-man  pays  50  per  cent 
tax  on  his  sugar,  over  60  per  cent  on  some  of  his  woollens, 
about  40  per  cent  on  his  cottons,  55  per  cent  on  his  ready- 
made  clothes,  and  so  on.  Is  there  any  return  made  for  this 
by  the  tariff  ?  Are  his  wages  increased  more  than  the  cost 
of  living?  If  they  are  not,  then  protection  is  an  injury  to 
the  working-man. 

In  the  first  place  the  large  majority  of  working-men  do  not 


38  OUR    UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

labor  for  protected  industries.  The  only  man  who  can  give 
larger  wages  by  reason  of  the  tariff  is  a  manufacturer  who 
receives  a  bounty  from  the  tax  imposed  upon  the  consumers. 
The  fund  from  which  wages  are  paid  must  be  increased  if 
wages  themselves  are  to  be  greater.  This  increase  is  given 
up  to  the  manufacturer.  It  has  been  shown  that  the 
farmer  suffers  from  the  exactions  of  the  tariff.  All  that  he 
buys  is  dearer  for  it,  and  all  that  he  sells  is  as  cheap  as  can 
be.  The  laborer  for  the  farmer  must  suffer  with  his  em- 
ployer, and  he  suffers  so  much  that  the  average  annual  in- 
come of  all  workers  in  agriculture,  including  employer  and 
working-man,  is  only  $289.  Of  course  the  farm  laborer  gets 
nothing  but  increased  taxation  from  the  tariff.  He  pays 
more  than  he  ought  for  his  clothes,  for  his  boots  and  shoes, 
for  his  blankets,  for  his  hats,  for  his  provisions,  for  his  rent, 
for  everything  which  he  must  have  to  sustain  life ;  and  as 
his  employer's  income  is  decreased  by  his  share  of  the 
$450,000,000  annually  paid  by  the  farmers  to  support  their 
richer  manufacturing  neighbors?"  he  is  obliged  to  sustain,  in 
reduced  wages,  even  more  than  his  own  share  of  the  burdens 
of  tariff  taxation. 

It  is  equally  true  that  the  working-men  in  the  mechanical 
industries  receive  no  benefit  from  the  tariff.  The  protec- 
tionist who  would  assert  that  a  carpenter  or  a  mason  receives 
im>re  wages  because  the  cotton,  woollen,  and  iron  manufac- 
turers are  the  recipients  of  a  popular  bounty  would  indeed 
be  an  enthusiast.  The  employer  of  the  carpenter  and  mason 
is  a  builder,  and  the  price  of  all  the  material  which  he  pur- 
chases is  increased  by  the  protective  tariff.  He  receives  no 
bounty  which  he  can  divide  with  his  laborers.  It  would  be 
interesting  to  find  out  from  the  working-men  themselves 
what  they  think  they  gain  by  reason  of  the  taxes  imposed 
upon  everything  they  buy.  Is  there  one  of  them  who  sup- 
poses that  he  is  benefited  by  paying  to  capitalists  a  bounty 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  39 

of  about  40  per  csnt  ?  What  gains  the  man  who  carries  a 
hod,  or  works  on  the  streets,  or  drives  a  carriage,  or  takes 
care  of  horses,  or  writes  books,  or  for  the  newspapers,  or 
paints  pictures,  or  sets  type,  or  runs  a  printing  press,  or 
drives  a  locomotive,  or  is  a  conductor  or  a  brakeman  on 
a  raih-oad,  or  practises  law,  or  preaches  sermons,  or  heals 
bodies,  or  digs  ditches,  or  belongs  in  any  way  to  the  vast 
brotherhood  of  labor  that  works  outside  of  mills  and  fac- 
tories ?  Can  any  one  of  the  men  who  work  in  this  way 
say  how  his  condition  is  improved  by  a  law  which  compels 
him  to  pay  $29  for  a  $20  coat ;  $1.50  for  $1.00  worth  of 
sugar ;  $16.50  for  a  $10.00  shawl? 

How  is  it  with  the  men  who  work  in  mills  and  factories  ? 
Mr.  J.  E.  Thorold  Rogers  has  recently  published  a  book 
entitled  "  Six  Centuries  of  Work  and  Wages."  Mr.  Rogers 
is  a  member  of  the  British  Parliament,  who  has  given  much 
study  to  what  we  call  the  labor  problem,  and  he  is  one  of 
the  best  and  wisest  of  friends  of  the  working-men  of  Eng- 
land, a  firm  believer  in  the  good  accomplished  through  a 
union  of  laborers,  and  a  stanch  supporter  of  Mr.  Joseph 
Arch  in  his  work  in  behalf  of  the  agricultural  laborers  of 
Great  Britain.  Mr.  Rogers  says  this,  in  speaking  of  his  own 
country :  — 

"At  present  I  believe  that  the  workmen  of  this  country,  speaking 
of  them  in  a  mass,  are  better  paid  than  those  of  any  other  settled  and 
fully  peopled  community,  if  one  takes  into  account  not  merely  the 
money  wages  which  they  earn,  but  the  power  which  their  wages  have 
over  commodities." 

And  the  increase  of  wages  has  come  entirely  since  the 
establishment  of  free  trade  in  England. 

Another  thing  which  Mr.  Rogers  says  is  worthy  of  careful 
thought.  It  is  this :  — 

"Political  economy  has  indeed  taught  one  lesson  of  enormous 
value,  though  the  truth  has  only  been  accepted  in  its  fulness  among 


40  OUR    UNJUST    TARIFF   LAW. 

ourselves.  It  is  that  any  hindrance  put  by  law  or  custom  in  the  pur- 
chaser's market  is  a  wrong  to  every  one  —  to  the  community  first,  to 
the  laborer  next,  to  the  capitalist  employer  last.  It  is  due  to  the  facts 
that  the  injury  comes  last  to  the  capitalist,  and  that  before  the  mis- 
chief is  worked  out  such  a  person  is  able  to  gain  abnormal  profits  by 
the  losses  of  others;  and  that  they  who  get  those  profits  are  an  organi- 
zation ;  the  consumers  and  the  laborers,  as  a  rule,  are  only  a  mob ;  that 
protectionist  laws,  as  they  are  called,  exist  for  a  day." 

Unless  the  operatives  in  mills  are  benefited  by  a  protec- 
tive tariff  no  class  of  working-men  can  be  helped.  Even  a 
protectionist  will  admit  the  soundness  of  this  position.  But 
to  start  with,  as  Mr.  Rogers  shows,  the  experience  of  Great 
Britain  is  that  the  condition  of  the  working-men  was  bettered 
by  the  abandonment  of  protection.  What  might  have  been 
expected  has  naturally  followed.  As  soon  as  the  govern- 
ment ceased  taxing  the  earner  of  wages  in  the  interest  of 
the  earner  of  interest  the  former's  condition  was  improved. 

Robert  Giffen,  LL.D.,  is  president  of  the  London  Sta- 
tistic Society,  which  was  organized  for  the  purpose  of  ob- 
taining information  concerning  the  progress  of  the  working- 
classes.  In  his  inaugural  address,  delivered  last  November, 
Dr.  Giffen  shows  that  in  the  last  fifty  years  the  wages  of 
British  operatives  have  increased  wonderfully.  For  example : 
the  wages  of  weavers  have  increased  150  per  cent ;  of  chil- 
dren who  are  employed  in  spinning,  160  per  cent ;  of  pattern 
weavers,  55  per  cent.  Dr.  Giffen  tl links  that  the  figures 
do  not  fully  indicate  the  increase  that  has  actually  occurred. 
At  the  same  time,  while  the  wages  of  operatives  have  grown 
greater,  the  wages  of  seamen  have  increased  from  25  to  69 
per  cent.  The  wages  of  agricultural  laborers  have  also 
increased  about  60  per  cent,  while  the  increase  in  wages  in 
Ireland  has  been  very  marked. 

At  the  same  time  the  hours  of  labor  have  been  diminished 
very  nearly  20  per  cent,  so  that  the  workman  gets  from  50 
to  100  per  cent  more  money  for  20  per  cent  less  work.  At 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  41 

the  same  time,  the  price  of  the  necessaries  of  life  has  de- 
creased. Although  meat  and  house-rent  are  dearer  —  the 
latter  largely  because  there  has  been  much  improvement  in 
the  dwelling-houses  of  the  British  workmen  —  the  aggregate 
of  price  has  diminished,  largely  owing  to  the  cheapness  of 
wheat.  The  improvement  in  the  condition  of  the  British 
workman  has  been  so  great  that  the  death  rate  has  decreased; 
pauperism  has  diminished ;  savings  have  wonderfully  in- 
creased, and  the  schools  have  multiplied. 

Dr.  Giffen  states  the  method  by  which  nature  works, 
under  a  system  of  taxation  such  as  the  revenue  reformers 
propose,  so  well,  that  it  will  be  best  to  quote  exactly  what 
he  says.  He  shows  that  nature,  and  not  a  protective  tariff, 
distributes  the  rewards  of  toil.  He  says  :  — 

"  It  lias  been  shown  directly,  I  believe,  that,  while  the  individual 
incomes  of  the  working-classes  have  largely  increased,  the  prices  of 
their  main  articles  of  consumption  have  rather  declined;  and  the  in- 
ference as  to  their  being  much  better  off,  which  would  be  drawn  from 
these  facts,  is  fully  supported  by  statistics  showing  a  decline  in  the 
rate  of  mortality,  an  increase  of  the  consumption  of  articles  in  general 
use,  an  improvement  in  general  education,  a  diminution  of  crime  and 
pauperism,  a  vast  increase  of  the  number  of  depositors  in  savings 
banks,  and  other  evidences  of  general  well-being.  Finally,  the  in- 
crease of  the  return  to  capital  has  not  been  in  any  way  in  proportion, 
the  yield  in  the  same  amount  of  capital  being  less  than  it  was,  and  the 
capital  itself  being  more  diffused,  while  the  remuneration  of  labor  has 
enormously  increased.  The  facts  are  what  we  should  have  expected 
from  the  conditions  of  production  in  recent  years.  Inventions  having 
been  multiplied,  and  production  having  been  increasingly  efficient, 
while  capital  has  been  accumulated  rapidly,  it  is  the  wages-receivers 
who  must  have  the  benefit.  The  competition  of  capital  keeps  profits 
down  to  the  lowest  point,  and  workmen  consequently  get  for  them- 
selves nearly  the  whole  product  of  the  aggregate  industry  of  the 
country.  It  is  interesting,  nevertheless,  to  find  the  facts  correspond 
with  what  theory  should  lead  us  to  anticipate." 

According  to  statistics  furnished  by  our  own  State  De- 
partment, the  wages  of  Great  Britain  are  much  higher  than 


42  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

wages  in  the  continental  countries  where  there  are  pro- 
tective tariffs.  For  example :  in  England,  bricklayers 
received  $8.16  a  week;  in  Italy,  they  are  paid  $4.00;  in 
Spain,  $5.25 ;  in  Germany,  $4.00 ;  in  France,  $5.00 ;  in 
Belgium,  $6.00.  This  sufficiently  illustrates  the  difference 
between  these  countries. 

Mr.'Jacob  Schoenhof,  a  New  York  manufacturer,  made  a 
statement,  last  winter,  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Representatives.  He  showed  that 
in  the  cotton  factories  of  this  country  wages  were  about 
15  per  cent  higher  than  in  England,  but  this  was  made 
up  by  the  longer  hours  of  labor,  and  by  the  greater  skill 
of  the  American  operative.  The  wages  in  England,  how- 
ever, are  50  per  cent  higher  than  those  in  Germany,  and 
30  per  cent  above  those  of  France,  while  the  hours  are  56  a 
week,  against  66  and  72  in  this  country.  In  the  woollen 
industries  England  pays  50  per  cent  more  wages  than  Ger- 
many, and  from  20  to  35  per  cent  more  than  France. 

In  almost  every  respect,  the  cost  of  living  in  this  country 
is  higher  than  in  Great  Britain.  House-rent  and  board  are 
higher,  but  some  food  supplies  are  cheaper.  This  is  because 
much  of  the  food  of  Great  Britain  is  imported  from  this 
country,  and  therefore  the  low  prices  are  the  result  of  for- 
eign competition,  and  must  always  exist,  because  of  the 
wealth  of  our  agricultural  resources.  If  duties  were  lowered, 
and  even  if  the  protective  feature  of  our  tariff  should  be 
entirely  abandoned,  there  would  be  no  change  in  this  re- 
spect, except  to  equalize  prices,  so  that  the  farmer  and  his 
laborers,  and  the  mechanics  and  operatives  of  towns  and 
cities,  would  secure  more  for  their  earnings  than  they  do 
now  under  protection,  which  means  an  artificial  distribution 
of  wealth. 

Working-men  should  not  be  deceived  by  comparisons  made 
between  the  working-men  of  one  city  in  Englancl  and  of 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  43 

another  in  Massachusetts, — Manchester  and  Lowell  for 
example.  It  is  not  ingenuous  to  argue,  as  has  been  argued, 
that  because  there  are  more  savings  deposited  in  the  banks 
of  Lowell  than  of  Manchester,  therefore  the  operatives  of 
Lowell  can  lay  aside  more  from  their  earnings  than  opera- 
tives similarly  employed  in  Great  Britain.  The  people  of 
two  cities  may  differ  in  many  respects,  even  of  two  cities 
in  one  of  our  own  States.  Between  Lowell  and  Fall  River, 
both  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  for  example,  the  statis- 
tics of  that  commonwealth  show  a  great  difference.  The 
people  of  Lowell  are  thrifty,  self-respecting,  and  saving, 
while  those  of  Fall  River  are  less  so,  according  to  the 
reports  of  the  Massachusetts  Bureau  of  Labor.  When  to 
the  ordinary  temptations  of  an  undue  proportion  of  drink- 
ing-shops,  of  ill-ventilated,  unwholesome  dwelling-houses,  is 
added  dear  land,  which  precludes  the  possibility  of  a  work- 
ing-man saving  enough  to  buy  a  house  for  himself  and  his 
family,  it  may  easily  be  seen  why  the  same  man  may  change 
his  nature  if  he  shall  be  transplanted  from  one  place  to  the 
other.  An  operative  who  may  in  Manchester  waste  the 
average  time  in  drunkenness,  which,  according  to  trust- 
worthy reports,  is  two  days  in  a  week,  may,  in  the  different 
atmosphere  of  Lowell,  become  a  saver  of  money.  In  the 
one  place,  it  is  the  thing  to  get  drunk ;  in  the  other,  it  is 
the  thing  to  have  an  account  in  the  savings  bank. 

If  capitalists  engaged  in  carrying  on  protected  manu- 
fnctures  are  so  much  interested  in  keeping  up  the  wages 
of  labor,  why  do  they  import  cheap  labor  from  abroad  ?  It 
is  a  custom  in  New  England  and  in  other  parts  of  the 
country  where  the  ..business  of  manufacturing  is  carried  on, 
to  import  labor  from  Europe  and  elsewhere  because  it  is 
cheaper  than  American  labor.  Only  a  year  ago  a  foreign 
government  had  occasion  to  make  strong  representations  to 
our  State  Department,  because  of  the  conduct  of  some  mill- 


44  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

owners  in  New  Hampshire  towards  subjects  of  Sweden. 
These  Swedes  had  been  brought  here  at  the  expense  of  the 
mill-owners,  and  had  been  supplied  with  household  furniture 
and  provisions  from  a  store  connected  with  the  mill.  The 
operatives  received  small  wages,  and  when  they  were  in 
debt  to  the  company  they  were  in  its  power.  When  there 
was  danger  that  their  earnings  would  pay  their  debts,  the 
mill  would  stop  running,  and  the  debts  would  be  given  a 
chance  to  grow.  In  this  way  the  Swedes  were  kept  in 
slavery.  When  better  employment  and  higher  wages  were 
offered  them  in  the  neighboring  State  of  Massachusetts,  and 
they  attempted  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunity  to 
better  their  lot,  they  were  arrested  on  the  ground  that-  they 
were  about  to  quit  the  State  of  New  Hampshire  for  the 
purpose  of  defrauding  their  creditors. 

This  is  not  a  unique  case.  The  manufacturers,  protected 
or  not,  seek  to  secure  their  working-men  for  low  wages, 
because  low  wages  is  one  of  the  elements  that  go  to  the 
making  of  large  profits.  Protectionists  say  that  they  desire 
a  high  tariff  in  order  that  the  difference  between  the  high 
wages  of  this  country  and  the  low  wages  paid  by  their 
foreign  competitors  may  be  made  up.  But  as  a  matter  of 
fact  they  receive  much  more  than  that.  At  least  they  do 
not  begin  to  pay  to  their  laborers  what  they  receive  from 
the  taxpayers  in  the  way  of  bounty,  and  in  very  many 
instances  the  manufacturer  receives  in  bounty  more  than  the 
whole  cost  of  his  wages. 

Speaker  Carlisle  figures  out,  from  returns  of  the  census 
of  1880,  that  it  requires  two  tons  of  ore  to  make  one  ton  of 
pig  iron,  and  that  the  cost  of  labor  in  this  quantity  of  ore  is 
$2.70,  and  in  making  pig  iron  is  $3.35  a  ton.  It  takes  1.3 
tons  of  pig  iron  to  make  one  ton  of  bar  iron,  the  total  cost 
of  labor  in  the  pig  being  $4.35.  According  to  the  testimony 
of  persons  engaged  in  the  business,  the  cost  of  labor  in  making 


OUR   UNJUST    TARIFF   LAW.  45 

one  ton  of  merchant  bar  iron  was,  in  1880,  $13.     Mr.  Car- 
lisle, therefore,  formulated  this  statement :  — 

Cost  of  labor  in  2  tons  iron  ore $2.70 

"  1  ton  pig  iron 4.35 

"  "         1  ton  bar  iron  .....'....     13.00 

Total  cost  of  labor $20.05 

But  the  duty  on  merchant  bar  iron  was  $33.60  per  ton, 
"  or  $13.55  more  than  enough  to  pay  for  all  the  labor  in  its 
production  from  the  time  the  crude  material  leaves  the  earth 
until  it  is  sent  from  the  mill  as  a  finished  article.  And 
besides  this,"  said  Mr.  Carlisle,  in  his  speech  of  March  28 
and  29,  1882,  "there  is  a  duty  of  20  per  cent  on  the  ore 
equal  to  $1.10  per  two  tons,  and  a  duty  of  $7  per  ton  on  the 
pig,  making  the  aggregate  duty  upon  all  these  forms  of  pro- 
duct $43.80." 

A  very  interesting  and  important  table  was  prepared  by 
the  Hon.  Thomas  J.  Wood,  of  Indiana,  and  used  by  him  in 
the  debate  on  the  Morrison  tariff  bill.  This  table  showed 
that  the  value  of  the  product  of  all  mechanical  and  manu- 
facturing industries  in  the  census  year  was  $5,369,579,191. 
The  amount  paid  for  labor  in  the  production  of  this  value 
was  $947,953,795.  The  percentage  of  value  paid  for  labor 
was  17.7  ;  but  the  manufacturers  received  from  the  taxpayers 
a  bounty  of  40  per  cent,  so  that  there  was  an  excess  of  tariff 
over  the  cost  of  labor  of  22.3  per  cent.  Mr.  Wood's  table 
will  be  found  in  full  in  the  Appendix,  but  a  few  extracts 
showing  the  excess  of  bounty  over  the  entire  cost  of  labor 
will  illustrate  the  important  fact  that  the  taxpayers  of  this 
country  pay  to  the  protected  manufactures  all  the  wages, 
interest,  and  insurance  that  they  are  obliged  to  expend.  The 
following  list  shows  the  excesses  of  tariff  duties  over  cost 
of  labor :  — 


46  OUR   UNJUST    TARIFF    LAW. 

Agricultural  implements 12.6  p.  c. 

Bags,  other  than  paper 32.0  " 

Leather  belting  and  hose 20.7  " 

Linen          "  " 20.1  " 

liubber       "  " 17.9  " 

Hag  carpets ,  17.9  " 

Carpets,  other  than  rag 28.28  " 

Clothing,  men's, 

cotton 13.1  " 

woollen 38.1  " 

linen 18.1  " 

silk 28.1  " 

women's,  same. 

Cotton  goods 16.7  " 

thread .'  28.6  " 

Cotton  ties 20.5  " 

Drugs  and  chemicals 26.2  " 

Food  preparations 7.2  tl 

Fruit-jar  trimmings 8.5  and  23.5  " 

Furnishing  goods.    Silk 27  " 

Woollen 37  " 

Linen 17  " 

Cotton 12  " 

India  rubber 7  " 

Furniture,  manufactured 5 

silk  reps 20 

woollen  reps 25  " 

marble  slabs     . 25  " 

haircloths 7  " 

varnish 10  " 

Glass,  common  window 25.1  " 

polished  window 18.0  " 

fluted,  or  rough  plate       7.0  " 

plate  glass 42.6  " 

silvered  glass 14.4  " 

cut,  stained,  and  ornamented 17.1  " 

Hand-knit  goods,  woollens 24.1  " 

cottons 9.1  " 

House-furnishing  goods, 

Earthenware,  common     ....  8.7  " 

China,  unornamented 38.7  " 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  47 

House-furnishing  goods  —  continued. 

China,  ornamented 43.7   p.  c. 

Cutlery 28.7  " 

Glassware 28.7  " 

Willow  ware 13.7  " 

Woodenware 18.7  " 

Linens 23.7  " 

Cottons 18.7  " 

Metals 28.7  " 

Iron  and  steel 22.2 

Iron  bolts,  nuts,  washers,  and  rivets 25.3 

Iron  doors  and  shutters 24.1 

Ironforgings 24.5  " 

Iron  nails  and  spikes,  cut  and  wrought  .      9.4  and  49.9 

Iron  pipe,  wrought 28.5 

Leather from  4.1  to  35.8  " 

Linen  goods 19.4  " 

Liquors from  9.2  to  79.59    " 

Lumber average  about  16 

Marble from  13.4  to  58.1  " 

Woollen  hats 48.5  " 

Woollen  goods 49.5  " 

Worsted  goods 33.3  " 

These  facts  show  that  the  manufacturers  receive  too  much 
protection  if  they  desire  only  to  make  up  the  difference  be- 
tween wages  in  this  country  and  wages  abroad.  They  show 
that  the  taxpayers  bestow  upon  many  of  them  all  the  wages 
that  their  labor  costs  them,  and  from  8  to  50  per  cent  in  ad- 
dition. That  certainly  should  be  a  profitable  business  which 
costs  the  owner  nothing  for  labor,  interest,  or  insurance. 

What  do  these  unprotected  manufacturers  do?  It  has 
already  been  stated  that  they  import  foreign  labor  to  com- 
pete with  American  working-men,  and  keep  them  in  slavery 
at  that.  Moreover,  the  testimony  of  Consul  Shaw  at  Man- 
chester is,  that  many  operatives  in  British  cotton  mills  are 
better  paid  than  the  men  doing  the  same  work  in  American 
mills.  The  reports  of  the  Massachusetts  Bureau  of  Labor 


48        ^  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

Statistics  show  a  deplorable  state  of  affairs,  —  small  pay, 
all  the  earnings  of  the  operatives  eaten  up  by  the  mill 
stores,  unwholesome  dwellings,  and  overworked  women 
and  children.  A  cigarrnaker  testifies  that  in  Pennsylvania 
the  wages  earned  by  men  of  his  craft  average  from  $2  to 
$6  a  week,  lower  than  the  wages  paid  to  Chinese  laborers 
on  the  Pacific  coast.  Mr.  John  Jarrett  testifies  that  the 
condition  of  the  coal  miners  of  Pennsylvania  is  miserable 
and  pitiable.  They  take  their  lives  in  their  hands,  and  yet 
they  are  paid  a  pittance,  and  their  protected  employers 
make  them  pay  for  what  they  buy  100  per  cent  more  than 
other  people  pay. 

The  protectionists  have  a  good  deal  to  say  about  the  evil 
of  employing  women  and  children  in  factories,  and  they  pro- 
fess that  the  benefits  which  they  receive  from  a  high  tariff 
enable  them  to  remedy  this  evil.  With  more  than  all  their 
pay-roll  provided  by  the  taxpayers  of  the  country,  they 
ought  be  able  to  accomplish  this  good  ;  but  do  they?  Statis- 
tics show  that  they  are  as  eager  to  obtain  low-priced  labor 
as  their  competitors  in  Europe.  In  cotton  mills  of  this 
country  there  are  employed  girls  as  young  as  7  or  8  years.  In 
the  potteries  of  Trenton  we  may  find  even  children  of  9 
years  old  at  work.  As  a  rule,  the  women  who  work  in  the 
great  mills  of  Pennsylvania  labor  from  7  in  the  morning 
until  6  in  the  evening,  with  an  hour's  intermission,  and 
for  this  they  receive  from  $5  to  $7  a  week.  The  mills  of 
Philadelphia  employ  large  numbers  of  women,  and  it  is  the 
common  practice  of  these  women  to  lock  their  children  in 
the  street  while  the  mothers  go  to  work  at  the  factory. 
Recently,  nurseries  have  been  established  where  the  children 
of  factory  hands  can  be  left  at  a  fixed  charge  by  the  day 
while  their  mothers  are  at  work. 

The  picture  that  is  presented  by  the  honest  reports  that 
are  made  on  labor  in  factories  is  not  such  as  that  which  is 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF    LAW.  49 

presented  by  the  protectionists  in  "their  newspapers  and  their 
speeches  in  Congress.  Labor  suffers  all  the  exactions  that 
employers  can  make  upon  it;  and  in  addition  to  the  grind- 
ing force  of  competition,  there  must  be  added  all  the  taxa- 
tion which  a  protective  tariff  imposes  upon  every  consumer, 
whether  he  is  a  merchant,  a  professional  man,  a  laborer,  or 
even  a  bounty-fed  manufacturer. 

The  Massachusetts  Report  of  the  Statistics  of  Labor  for 
188*2  shows  some  remarkable  facts.  Between  1878  and 
1881  the  wages  of  unprotected  agriculture  increased  14.1 
per  cent ;  of  blacksmithing,  11.8  per  cent ;  of  builders'  trades, 
4.9  per  cent ;  of  printing,  10.2  per  cent.  But  the  wages  of 
protected  boot  and  shoemakers  decreased  4.4  per  cent ;  of 
carpet  makers,  7.9  per  cent.  The  wages  of  laborers  in  pro- 
tected cotton  mills  increased  9.1  per  cent ;  in  glass  factories, 
11.6  per  cent ;  hosiery,  13.5  per  cent ;  machines  and  machin- 
ery, 22  per  cent.  The  average  increase  of  all  industries  was 
6.9  per  cent. 

At  the  same  time  groceries  advanced  9.1  per  cent;  pro- 
visions, 20.1  per  cent ;  fuel,  30.1  per  cent ;  dry  goods,  9  per 
cent;  boots  fell  in  price  1.6  per  cent;  rents  advanced  35.1 
per  cent ;  board,  13.7  per  cent. 

Mr.  Wright  says,  "  On  all  these  items  entering  into  the 
cost  of  living,  the  average  increase  was  21.2  per  cent." 

Considering  all  this,  does  the  working-man  think  that  pro- 
tection is  of  any  benefit  to  him  ?  In  the  first  place  he  is 
taxed  heavily  on  everything  which  he  buys.  Most  of  the 
working-men  of  the  country  receive  no  return  whatever  for 
this  increased  taxation.  They  labor  in  occupations  which 
obtain  no  share  of  the  vast  sum  of  money  taken  from  the 
taxpayers  for  the  support  of  the  manufacturers.  The  wages 
of  those  who  do  work  for  manufacturers,  which  are'increased 
by  protection,  are  not  increased  so  much  as  is  the  cost  of 
living.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  protectionists 


50  OUR  UNJUST   TARIFF  LAW. 

assert  that  they  ask  for  high  duties  in  order  to  maintain 
high  wages,  they  reap  the  benefit  of  protection  themselves. 
If  they  should  submit  to  an  average  reduction  of  between 
17  and  18  per  cent,  they  would  still  receive  from  the  tax- 
payers a  bounty  large  enough  not  only  to  pay  the  difference 
between  wages  here  and  wages  m  Great  Britain,  but  abso- 
lutely all  the  wages  they  pay ;  at  the  same  time  this  reduc- 
tion to  which  they  refuse  to  consent  would  make  wages 
mean  more  to  the  working-men,  for  the  purchasing  power 
of  each  dollar  would  be  greater.  The  charitable  intentions 
of  the  protectionists  towards  the  working-men  are  not  borne 
out  by  the  story  of  labor  in  this  country.  There  are,  indeed, 
model  manufacturing  towns  where  the  operatives  of  mills 
are  cared  for.  They  have  good  homes,  good  schools,  libra- 
ries, and  many  advantages.  But  the  coal  miners  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, earning  less  than  a  dollar  a  day,  and  bled  by  the 
truck  system ;  the  workers  in  furnaces,  whose  wages  have 
been  cut  down  20  per  cent,  while  their  employers  have  suf- 
fered no  decrease  in  the  bounty  which  the  taxpayers  are 
compelled  to  give  them;  the  women  of  Philadelphia,  earning 
$5  a  week  for  ten  hours'  daily  toil,  and  leaving  their  children 
at  the  neighbors'  or  at  nurseries,  at  a  cost  which  must  be  paid 
from  their  scanty  earnings,  or,  if  the  mothers  cannot  afford 
that  charge,  locking  the  children  in  the  streets ;  the  strikes 
which  last  for  months,  and  which  rarely  attain  their  ends; 
the  closing  of  mills  made  necessary  by  over-production  ;  the 
importation  of  cheap  foreign  labor,  —  all  those  tell  a  story 
which  contradicts  with  its  terrible  facts  the  pretended  phil- 
anthropy of  the  protectionists.* 

*  In  the  census  year  the  average  income  of  hands  employed  in 
manufacturing,  mechanical,  and  mining  pursuits  was  $346.  Since 
then,  according  to  the  testimony  of  an  expert  friendly  to  the  em- 
ployers, wages  have  been  reduced  20  per  cent,  so  that  the  average 
income  is  now  $277. 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  51 

One  of  the  great  evils  of  the  system  is  that  it  increases  the 
distance  between  the  poor  and  the  rich.  If  a  manufacturer 
pays  15  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  production  for  labor,  and 
receives  a  protection  of  45  per  cent,  the  government  is  help- 
ing him  on  the  road  to  wealth,  while  it  does  not  help  his 
working-men  to  the  extent  of  a  solitary  cent.  The  rich  are 
helped  in  the  increase  of  their  riches,  and  the  poor  remain 
where  they  are.  Wealth  is  distributed  not  only  unequally, 
but  artificially,  and  the  working-man  suffers  while  the  pro- 
tected manufacturer  gains.  Every  vote  cast  by  a  laboring 
man  for  a  protectionist  for  Congress  is  a  vote  against  his 
own  interests. 


VI. 

WHAT  PROTECTION  DOES  FOR  TRADE  AND  COMMERCE. 

PROTECTION  tends  to  destroy  foreign  commerce,  and  it 
restricts  domestic  trade.  If  it  does  not  accomplish  this  it 
fails  of  its  end.  The  professed  purpose  of  those  who  advo- 
cate a  continuance  of  a  high  tariff  is  the  prevention  of  im- 
portations, in  order  that  our  people  may  manufacture  for 
themselves  all  that  is  necessary  for  their  use.  The  logical 
conclusion  from  this  position  is  that  a  perfect  tariff  would 
prohibit  importations  of  all  manufactured  articles.  The 
cost  to  the  consumer  is  a  matter  of  indifference.  Protec- 
tion seeks  to  compel  every  American  to  wear  American 
goods,  no  matter  how  badly  they  may  be  made  or  how  ex- 
pensive they  may  be. 

A  protectionist  looks  upon  commerce  as  hostile  to  the  best 
interests  of  the  country.  A  hundred  years  ago  the  theory 
that  commerce  is  an  object  of  suspicion  was  fashionable 
everywhere  except  in  Holland,  and  the  shrewd  Dutchmen 


52  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

profited  by  the  intellectual  blindness  of  their  European 
neighbors.  To-day  the  old  fallacy  is  fashionable  again  in 
the  United  States,  and  in  some  countries  on  the  continent 
of  Europe,  while  Great  Britain  wisely  reaps  the  rewards  of 
extended  commerce. 

The  manufacturers  of  this  country  do  not  want  competi- 
tion. This  does  not  mean  in  every  instance  that  they  are 
still  unable  to  compete.  In  some  branches  of  manufactures 
they  make  the  best  goods  that  are  produced.  There  is  no 
reason,  for  example,  why  cotton  goods  should  be  protected. 
The  cotton  is  grown  at  our  doors,  whereas  the  English  mills 
are  obliged  to  import  it  from  us,  paying  freight  on  all  that 
they  receive.  Then,  when  their  goods  are  made,  they  are 
compelled  to  pay  freight  back  if  they  send  them  to  this 
country.  Moreover  our  machinery  is  much  better  than  the 
English  machinery.  Is  not  cheaper  raw  material  and  freight 
money  over  and  back  across  the  Atlantic  sufficient  protec- 
tion ?  It  would  be,  but  if  protection  were  removed  the 
American  cotton  manufacturers  would  have  to  be  content 
with  a  larger  market  and  smaller  prices.  Now  we  shall  see 
the  result  of  this  on  the  cotton  goods  trade  of  the  country 
which  produces  most  of  the  raw  cotton  of  the  world.  In 
1881  it  was  estimated  by  the  State  Department  that  the 
United  States  produced  four  fifths  of  all  the  cotton  of  the 
world ;  and  yet  the  value  of  the  cotton  manufactures  in 
Great  Britain  was  $561,170,000,  while  that  of  the  manu- 
facturers of  this  country  was  less  than  half  as  much,  $233,- 
280,000.  Taking  the  figures  of  a  pamphlet  published  by 
the  State  Department,  while  Mr.  Blaine  was  Secretary  of 
State,  we  find  that  the  commerce  of  this  coijntry  with  the 
world,  in  cotton  goods,  was  in  a  shameful  condition. 

Of  all  the  cotton  goods  imported  into  the  continent  of 
Africa,  and  the  value  reached  $25,866,000,  $16,049,000  were 
taken  from  the  United  Kingdom,  and  only  $817,000  from 
the  United  States. 


OUR   UNJUST  TARIFF   LAW.  53 

If  this  country  ought  to  have  any  commerce  it  is  certainly 
with  the  countries  of  our  own  continent,  and  yet  even  here 
our  Chinese  wall  policy  of  protection  keeps  us  from  compet- 
ing with  Great  Britain.  In  1880  Great  Britain  exported  to 
Mexico  35,008,200  yards  of  cotton  goods,  valued  at  $2,406,-' 
000.  In  the  same  year  the  exports  of  this  country  to  our 
nearest  southern  neighbor  amounted  to  only  9,210,398  yards, 
valued  at  $832,235.  Although  our  manufacturers  are  thou- 
sands of  miles  nearer  the  Mexican  market  than  the  British 
manufacturers  are,  our  plain  cottons  cost  6.97  cents  a  yard 
while  the  British  sold  at  6.06  cents,  and  our  prints  cost  7.84 
cents,  and  the  British  prints  7.22  cents. 

The  showing  as  to  the  Central  American  trade  is  still 
worse.  In  1880  the  United  Kingdom  exported  to  Central 
America  cotton  goods  to  the  value  of  82,161,000,  while  the 
exports  of  this  country  amounted  to  only  $77,736. 

Great  Britain  exported  to  the  West  Indies  $9,582,000 
worth  of  cotton  goods.  The  French  exports  amounted  to 
$1,221,000,  while  those  of  the  United  States  reached  only 
the  insignificant  sum  of  $956,802. 

The  prices  per  yard  of  the  goods  of  the  two  countries  are 
significant.  They  were  as  follows  :  — 

Prices  of  goods  exported  to  Central  America. 

Plain.  Prints, 

cts.  cts. 

From  Great  Britain      . 5.23  7.15 

"     United  States 6.89  7.14 

And  yet  with  this  small  difference  in  favor  of  the  Ameri- 
can manufacturer  in  the  price  of  prints,  the  Central  American 
market  took  $855,000  worth  of  prints  from  Great  Britain 
and  only  $28,322  worth  from  the  United  States.  The  rea- 
son is  plain.  Great  Britain's  policy  is  to  seek  a  foreign 
market,  and  her  manufacturers,  therefore,  make  goods  that 
satisfy  the  demand. 


54  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

The  prices  in  the  West  Indies  were  as  follows  :  — 

Plain.  Prints. 

cts.  cts. 

Great  Britain 6.72  7.28 

United  States 8.68  10.63 

i 

The  following  table  shows  the  export  of  cotton  goods  to 
the  principal  South  American  countries  :  — 

Values. 

Great  Britain.  United  States. 

Colombia $3,163,000  $586,692 

Venezuela 1,449,000  149,316 

Brazil       17,182,000  687,523 

Uruguay 3,081,000  ,          52,524 

Argentine  Republic 4,816,000  133,647 

Chili 5,162,000  217,869 

The  value  of  the  cottons  sent  from  England  to  British 
India  in  1880  was  $102,870,000,  while  the  value  of  American 
cottons  sent  there  was  $136,043. 

Great  Britain  sent  to  China  and  Hong  Kong  cottons 
valued  at  $29,774,000,  and  the  United  States  sent  $373,568. 

Japan  received  $9,784,000  worth  of  British  goods,  and 
$33,331  worth  of  American. 

The  trade  of  the  two  countries  with  Europe  is  shown  as 
follows  :  — 

Great  Britain.  United  States. 

Denmark $1,871,000  $2,812 

Germany 14,648,000  166,029* 

Holland       12,525,000  3,847 

Belgium . .    .  5,273,000  12,531 

France 8,615,000  21,507 

Spain 2,281,000  none 

Portugal 4,150,000  1,200 

Italy 7,064,000  10,566 

Austria-Hungary 936,000  2,650 

*  The  prices  of  American  goods  were  cheaper  than  those  of  British. 
The  American  goods  cost  7.4  cents  a  yard  for  plain,  and  9.09  cents  for 
print.  The  British  goods  cost  8.14  and  9.22  cents. 


OUK   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  55 

The  protectionists  of  the  United  States  deliberately  close 
the  door  on  this  important  commerce,  because  they  prefer 
to  receive  the  high  price  of  the  home  market  to  competing 
with  the  manufacturers  of  Great  Britain,  who  pay  more  for 
their  raw  cotton,  operate  with  not  so  good  machinery,  and 
who  yet  study  the  demands  of  the  world,  supply  all  the 
markets  of  the  world,  and  who  derive  from  lower  prices  a 
greater  prosperity  than  our  own  manufacturers  can  boast. 
The  reports  of  our  consuls  show  that  American  cottons  are 
better  than  British,  and  when  they  do  enter  into  competi- 
tion are  often  sold  cheaper  than  the  British  cottons.  But 
the  foreign  demand  is  only  supplied  by  Americans  when  our 
own  market  is  glutted.  Whenever  there  is  a  large  home 
demand  our  manufacturers  turn  their  backs  on  the  foreigners 
and  reap  for  a  time  the  high  prices  at  home  which  the 
bounty  enables  them  to  charge.  Instability  is  the  general 
result  of  the  protective  system,  —  abnormal  profits  one  day, 
and  gloomy  depression  the  next;  four  months  running  day 
and  night,  another  four  months  of  half-time,  and  another  of 
strikes,  lock-outs,  or  entire  shutting  down  ;  the  sale  of  goods 
at  unreasonably  high  prices,  or  their  exportation  at  rates 
which  cannot  pay. 

There  are  not  enough  cotton  goods  manufactured  by 
power  looms  to  supply  the  wear  of  the  world.  According 
to  our  State  Department,  it  is  estimated  that  the  Chinese 
alone  wear  out  7,300,000,000  yards  of  cottons  annually,  made 
on  hand  looms.  Why  not  supply  the  enormous  demand  of 
a  people  whose  chief  clothing  is  of  cotton,  and  who  are  at 
the  other  end  of  the  route  of  the  Pacific  Mail  Steamship 
Company  ? 

The  United  States  can  compete  and  compete  successfully 
with  Great  Britain.  The  difference  between  the  cotton 
trade  statistics  of  Canada  and  those  of  Mexico  are  very 
For  some  reason,  our  manufacturers  have 


56  OUR   UNJUST  TARIFF   LAW. 

found  it  to  their  profit  to  cultivate  the  trade  of  Canada,  and 
the  result  is  that  they  exported  to  that  country,  in  1880, 
cotton  goods  to  the  value  of  $2,766,779,  while  Great  Brit- 
ain's exports  were  valued  at  $3,771,165,  and  the  exports  of 
plain  goods  were  three  times  as  many  as  those  of  Great 
Britain.  The  prices  per  yard  were  as  follows :  — 

Plain.  Print. 

cts.  cts. 

Great  Britain    .        .        .        .        .        .        .        6.75  8.25 

United  States *   .        6.75  7 

The  story  of  our  cotton  goods  trade  is  the  story  of  all 
our  commerce.  Contrast  the  export  trade  of  Great  Brit- 
ain and  the  United  States  for  1881,  with  the  following 
countries :  — 

Great  Britain.  United  States. 

Africa $68,754,000  $4,581,924 

Canada 43,583,808  36,704,112 

Mexico 6,235,000  11,191,000 

Central  America         .        .        .  3,310,000  1,626,000 

Colombia     ....'.  5,220,000  5,383,000 

Venezuela 2,123,000  2,770,000 

British  Guiana    ....  4,200,COO  1,723,000 

Dutch  Guiana     ....  260,000  289,000 

Brazil 33,607,000  9,200,000 

Uruguay 6,877,000  1,612,000 

Argentine  Republic    .        .        .  12,103,000  3,121,000 

Chili 12,219,000  1,520,000 

Peru 1,847,000  94,000 

Of  the  exports  of  leading  manufactured  articles  exported 
to  South  America,  Great  Britain's  exports  amount  to 
$79,258,000,  the  exports  of  France  to  $58,113,000,  and 
those  of  the  United  States  to  $25,220,000.  Great  Britain, 
in  1880,  exported  to  the  several  countries  of  Europe  goods 
of  the  value  of  $617,576,000.  The  exports  of  France 
amounted  to  $625,963,000,  and  those  of  the  United  States 
to  $765,701,000.  Of  these  exports  Great  Britain  exported 
only  $389,132,000  of  British  goods,  France  $479,819,000  of 


OUR  UNJUST  TARIFF  LAW.  $7 

French  goods,  while  the  United  States  exported  $754,995,- 
000  of  American  goods.  But  this  great  exportation  was 
made  up  chiefly  of  the  products  of  the  soil.  As  has  been 
shown  before,  it  is  the  farmer  who  must  stand  the  com- 
petition of  the  foreign  market.  In  the  fiscal  year  1881,  the 
total  exports  of  this  country  amounted  to  $883,915,947.  Of 
this  amount,  $748,536,043  was  the  value  of  the  natural 
products,  and  $135,379,904  of  manufactured  articles.  And 
these  were  the  principal  items  of  the  natural  products :  — 

Bread  and  Breadstuffs $268,890,139 

Cotton 247,696,746 

Provisions 151,428,268 


$668,015,153 

Our  commerce,  then,  is  at  the  best  not  much  different 
than  it  would  have  been  had  the  government  never  taxed 
the  farmer  and  the  laborer  to  maintain  the  manufacturer. 
It  is  a  commerce  in  which  we  exchange  the  products  of  the 
soil  for  the  manufactured  articles  of  other  countries.  We 
do  not  even  make  enough  cotton  goods  for  ourselves.  In 
1881  we  imported  $234,962,511  of  manufactured  articles, 
and  $31,219,361  of  this  was  the  value  of  foreign  cotton 
goods  brought  into  the  country,  while  the  cottons  we  sent 
abroad  were  valued  at  only  $13,571,287. 

Protection  has  not  only  failed  to  give  the  country  the 
home  market  which  it  promised,  but  it  has  also  failed  to 
give  us  the  diversified  interests  for  which  we  pay  in  tariff 
taxes,  and  bounties.  It  does  not  even  give  us  enough  high- 
priced  American  fabrics,  and  it  obstructs  and  has  destroyed 
our  foreign  commerce.  The  shipping  trade  is  ruined.  In 
1880  this  country  imported  goods  from  Europe  amounting 
to  $340,831,000,  and  only  $11,863,000  came  in  American 
vessels ;  of  the  $754,995,000  exports,  of  the  same  year,  only 
$46,707,000  went  in  American  vessels. 


58  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

In  1855  there  were  built  in  this  country  for  the  foreign 
carrying  trade  400  vessels.  In  1879  only  35  were  built. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  tonnage  of  Great  Britain  engaged 
in  the  carrying  trade  with  this  country  has  increased,  since 
1857,  from  950,000  tons  to  nearly  6,000,000  tons.  In  1857, 
this  country  had  more  than  4,000,000  tons  engaged  in  the 
foreign  trade ;  now  it  has  hardly  600,000  tons.  Last  year 
we  paid  $120,000,000  freight  money  to  foreign  shipowners. 

The  protective  tariff  prevents  trading  with  foreign  coun- 
tries ;  it  throws  obstacles  in  the  way  of  American  citizens 
who  desire  to  engage  in  the  business  of  importing  goods; 
it  has  destroyed  the  carrying  trade ;  it  prevents  the  citizens 
of  this  country  from  earning  the  $120,000,000  of  freight 
money  annually  paid  to  foreign  ships.  During  the  last  year 
the  flag  of  the  United  States  was  not  once  seen  in  the  Suez 
Canal,  and  it  is  rarely  found  in  ports  where  it  was  once  the 
best  known  ensign  of  the  world.  tCan  the  commerce  of  the 
country  afford  any  longer  to  cripplevits  resources  and  limit 
its  field,  for  the  sake  of  increasing  ^Uie  profits  of  the  pro- 
tected manufacturers  ? 


YIL 

WHAT  A  LOW  TARIFF  DID  FOR  THE  COUNTRY. 

BETWEEN  1846  and  1860  the  country  had  a  low  tariff. 
Under  the  law  of  1846  the  average  rate  of  duty  was  about 
25  per  cent,  and  under  the  act  of  1857  it  was  about  20  per 
cent.  There  never  was  a  period  of  greater  prosperity  in  the 
history  of  the  country. 

In  1850  the  cash  value  of  farms  was  $3,271,575,426,  and 
in  1860  it  was  $6,645,045,057,  an  increase  of  103  per  cent 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  59 

In  1870  the  value  of  farms  was  $9,262,853,861  in  currency, 
an  increase  of  only  39  per  cent  over  the  gold  valuation  of 
1860.  In  1880  the  value  of  farms  was  $10,197,096,766,  an 
increase  of  a  little  more  than  10  per  cent  over  the  value  of 
1870.  From  1850  to  1860  the  value  of  farming  implements 
increased  63.50  per  cent.  In  the  next  decade  the  increase 
was  only  36  per  cent  in  currency,  while  from  1870  to  1880 
the  increase  was  only  20.66  per  cent. 

From  1830  to  1840  the  aggregate  value  of  all  real  and 
personal  property  increased  40  per  cent ;  from  1840  to  1850 
37  per  cent.  In  1850  this  aggregate  value  was  $7,135,- 
780,228;  in  1860  it  was  $16,159,616,068,  an  increase  of  126 
per  cent.  In  1870  the  aggregate  value  was  $30,068,518,507, 
in  currency,  being  an  apparent  increase  of  a  little  more  than 
85  per  cent.  In  1860  the  total  State  and  local  taxation  was 
$94,186,746,  but  in  1870  it  had  reached  the  enormous  sum 
of  $280,591,521,  an  increase  of  198  per  cent,  although  the 
value  of  property  had  increased  only  85  per  cent.  An  ex- 
amination of  the  report  of  the  Superintendent  of  the  Census 
for  1870  shows  that  the  increase  in  the  value  of  real  and 
personal  property  from  1850  to  1860  was  more  than  184  per 
cent,  instead  of  126  per  cent,  and  that  instead  of  an  increase 
of  85  per  cent  from  1860  to  1870,  there  was  an  actual  de- 
crease of  more  than  3  per  cent.  This  arises  from  what  the 
superintendent  says  was  an  undervaluation  of  property  in 
1860,  by  carelessness,  of  from  20  to  30  per  cent,  while  the 
nominal  valuation  of  property  was  increased  in  1870  from 
30  to  40  per  cent  through  the  effects  of  currency  inflation 
and  other  causes.  Making  the  necessary  allowances  for 
these  sums,  we  have  $20,199,520,085  as  the  proper  valuation 
for  1860,  and  $19,544,537,030  as  the  true  valuation  for  1870. 
If  our  wealth  had  increased  from  1860  to  1880  at  the  same 
rate  as  it  did  from  1850  to  1860,  it  would  have  reached,  in 
1880,  $83,000,000,000  instead  of  $43,300,000,000. 


60  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

There  was  the  same  wonderful  increase  in  our  manufac- 
turing and  mechanical  industries.  In  1850  the  total  value 
of  the  products  of  mechanical  and  manufacturing  industries 
was  $1,019,106,616;  in  1860  it  was  $1,885,861,676,  an  in- 
crease of  87  per  cent,  although  the  population  of  the  country 
had  increased  only  85.50  per  cent.  From  1860  to  1870  the 
actual  increase  was  only  52  per  cent. 

The  increase  in  the  production  of  coal,  which,  according 
to  the  protection  leaders,  indicates  better  than  any  other 
single  branch  of  industry  the  progress  of  all  manufacturing 
enterprises,  was  very  wonderful  between  1850  and  1860. 
The  following  table  shows  this  increase:  — 

per  cent. 

Gain  in  number  of  mines 22.30 

value  of  yearly  products         ....  182 

"      "  material  used 1017 

amount  paid  as  wages 137 

number  of  hands  employed    ....  143.33 

amount  of  capital  invested    ....  253 

In  Pennsylvania  the  capital  invested  in  the  production  of 
coal  was  331  per  cent  greater  in  1860  than  in  1850,  and  the 
value  of  the  coal  produced  increased  179.90  per  cent.  In 
Maryland  the  increase  was  nearly  137  per  cent ;  in  Ohio 
nearly  127  per  cent;  in  Indiana  nearly  652  per  cent;  in 
Illinois  it  was  1708  per  cent ;  in  Iowa  it  was  2204  per  cent; 
in  Kentucky  it  was  200  per  cent ;  and  in  Alabama  nearly 
237  per  cent. 

During  the  fiscal  year  1860  our  foreign  trade  amounted 
to  $687,372,176,  which  was  $45,000,000  greater  than  ever 
before.  We  built  2,265  ships  and  barques,  between  1850 
and  1860,  and  only  860  during  the  next  decade,  and  only 
608  between  1870  and  1880.  Then  our  tonnage  engaged  in 
all  trades,  coasting  as  well  as  foreign,  was  5,353,868  tons; 
now,  after  the  expiration  of  twenty  years,  it  is  4,068,035 
tons. 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  61 

The  social  and  intellectual  condition  of  the  people  kept 
pace  with  the  material  progress.  Schools,  churches,  and 
libraries  flourished.  The  product  of  the  printing  establish- 
ments of  the  United  States  increased  107.60  per  cent  from 
1860  to  1870,  while  the  capital  invested  increased  during  the 
same  time,  143  per  cent.  Wonderful  as  this  is,  it  does  not 
tell  the  story  of  the  prosperity  and  growth  of  the  preceding 
decade  under  a  revenue  tariff.  Then  the  products  of  the 
printing  houses  increased  168  per  cent,  while  the  capital 
invested  increased  235  per  cent.  In  New  England  the  in- 
creased product  was  more  than  96  per  cent,  and  in  the 
Middle  States  139  per  cent.  Pennsylvania  increased  her  pro- 
duct 250  per  cent,  and  New  Jersey  322  per  cent. 

In  the  eleven  western  States  and  Territories,  the  increase 
was  572  per  cent.  The  State  of  New  York  increased  104.60 
per  cent,  and  actually  turned  out  in  1860  more  than  the 
whole  country  produced  in  1850. 

In  1850  we  had  18,417  postoffices  and  178,672  miles  of 
post  routes,  but  in  1860  we  had  28,498  post-offices  and  245,- 
594  miles  of  post  routes,  an  increase  of  55  per  cent  in  the 
number  of  offices,  and  35  per  cent  in  miles  of  roads.  In 
1880,  20  years  later,  we  had  42,989  postoffices,  being  an  in- 
crease of  only  50  per  cent  over  the  number  in  1860,  and  343,- 
888  miles  of  post  roads,  being  an  increase  of  42.50  per  cent 
since  1860. 

In  the  manufacture  of  paper  the  United  States  increased 
the  value  of  its  product  106.50  per  cent  from  1860  to  1870, 
while  the  capital  invested  increased  126.50  per  cent,  but  from 
1850  to  1860  the  value  of  the  product  increased  more  than 
108  per  cent,  and  the  capital  invested  increased  nearly  180 
per  cent.  The  increase  in  the  number  of  hands  employed 
was  73.50  per  cent,  and  in  the  total  amount  of  wages  paid  89 
per  cent.  Pennsylvania  alone  increased  her  product  128 
per  cent. 


62  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 

Up  to  the  end  of  the  year  1850  we  had  constructed  only 
9,021  miles  of  railroad  in  this  country,  but  at  the  close  of 
1860,  we  had  30,635  miles,  being  an  increase  of  239.50  per 
cent  in  ten  years.  At  the  close  of  the  year  1870  we  had  52,- 
914  miles  of  railroad,  being  an  increase  of  only  a  little  more 
than  72  per  cent  over  the  number  in  1860,  notwithstanding 
the  government  had  since  1860  granted  millions  of  acres  of 
public  lands,  and  issued  its  bonds  to  the  amount  of  millions 
of  dollars  to  various  railroad  companies  to  aid  in  the  con- 
struction of  their  lines.  In  1880  we  had  88,237  miles  of 
railroad,  an  increase  of  66.66  per  cent  during  the  decade. 

The  value  of  the  output  of  our  woollen  mills  from  1850  to 
1860  increased  nearly  42.50  per  cent,  while  from  1870  to  1880 
it  increased  only  22.57  per  cent.  The  number  of  hands  em- 
ployed increased  18.50  per  cent,  and  the  total  wages  increased 
36.80  per  cent.  In  New  England  the  product  of  the  woollen 
mills  increased  62  per  cent;  the  increase  in  Rhode  Island  be- 
ing 176  per  cent;  Massachusetts,  53.70  percent;  New  Jersey, 
21.57  per  cent ;  Vermont,  61.39  per  cent;  and  Maine,  83.46 
per  cent. 

The  value  of  the  carpet  manufactures  increased  45.40  per 
cent.  The  increase  in  the  number  of  hands  employed  was 
8  per  cent,  and  the  increase  in  the  total  of  wages  paid  was 
nearly  24  per  cent.  The  compensation  received  by  each 
hand  was  15  per  cent  more  in  1860  than  in  1850.  In  the 
Middle  States  the  value  of  the  product  increased  80.90  per 
cent ;  in  Ohio,  208  per  cent ;  in  Maine,  47.30  per  cent ;  in 
Massachusetts,  44.80  per  cent ;  in  New  York,  32.90  per  cent; 
and  in  Pennsylvania  138  per  cent. 

The  products  of  the  manufactures  of  hosiery  increased 
608  per  cent.  The  Eastern  States  increased  481  per  cent ; 
the  Middle  States,  695.50  per  cent ;  and  the  Western  States, 
445  per  cent.  Pennsylvania  increased  276  per  cent;  Con- 
necticut, 523  per  cent ;  New  Jersey,  379  per  cent ;  Massachu- 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  G3 

setts,  373  per  cent ;  Maryland,  255  per  cent ;  Ohio,  278  per 
cent ;  and  Missouri,  726  per  cent. 

The  production  of  iron  ore  increased  79.20  per  cent,  while 
the  capital  invested  increased  126.30  per  cent.  The  total 
number  of  hands  employed  in  this  industry  was  45  per  cent 
greater  in  1860  than  in  1850,  and  the  total  amount  of  wages 
paid  was  nearly  57  per  cent  greater. 

The  production  of  pig  iron  increased  54  per  cent  in  the 
United  States.  In  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  it  increased 
82  per  cent;  in  New  Jersey,  105  per  cent;  in  Kentucky,  27 
per  cent ;  and  in  New  York,  £3  per  cent.  At  the  same  time 
the  price  of  pig  iron  was  reduced  from  $23.43  in  1850  to 
$21.13  in  1860. 

The  increase  in  the  value  of  bar,  sheet,  and  railroad  iron 
was  more  than  100  per  cent.  The  number  of  hands  em- 
ployed increased  66  per  cent,  and  the  amount  of  wages  paid. 
80  per  cent.  In  this  industry  Pennsylvania  increased  her 
production  106  per  cent ;  Delaware,  230  per  cent;  Maryland, 
104  per  cent;  Ohio,  173  per  cent;  Kentucky,  68  per  cent;  and 
Virginia,  104  per  cent. 

Iron  castings  increased  in  value  of  the  product  74.80  per 
cent.  In  the  Middle  States  the  value  of  the  product  was 
more  than  100  per  cent  greater  in  1860  than  in  1850 ;  in 
Pennsylvania,  100  per  cent;  and  in  Maine  more  than  520  per 
cent. 

In  the  production  of  hardware  there  was  an  increase  of 
56.70  per  cent,  while  the  capital  invested  increased  90  per 
cent,  and  the  number  of  hands  employed  increased  52.50  per 
cent.  The  New  England  States  increased  100  per  cent,  and 
made  more  hardware  in  1860  than  all  the  States  made  in 
1850.  Connecticut  alone  increased  her  production  103.80 
per  cent;  and  New  Jersey,  360  per  cent.  The  Western 
States  increased  their  product  74  per  cent,  while  the  State 
of  Ohio  increased  99  per  cent. 


64  OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF  LAW. 

The  steel  industry  had  its  birth  during  the  decade  from 
1850  to  1860.  The  product  increased  99.50  per  cent,  while 
the  capital  invested  increased  over  3,000  per  cent,  the  hands 
employed  1,770  per  cent,  and  the  wages  paid  123.60  per 
cent. 

In  the  manufacture  of  machinery,  steam  engines,  etc., 
including  locomotives,  hay  and  cotton  presses,  and  cotton 
and  woollen  machinery,  the  value  of  the  product  increased 
66.60  per  cent  in  the  whole  country,  but  in  the  Western 
States  the  increase  was  217  per  cent. 

The  manufacture  of  sewing  machines  was  scarcely  known 
in  1850,  but  in  1860  the  value  of  the  product  was  $4,247,820. 

During  this  prosperous  decade,  when  every  branch  of 
commerce  flourished,  when  labor  was  adequately  rewarded, 
and  when  the  American  mechanic  was  prosperous,  when  not 
only  the  material  but  the  intellectual  and  moral  forces  of 
the  country  grew  rapidly  and  healthfully,  the  government 
effected  two  loans,  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  $40,000,- 
000.  One  half  of  this  indebtedness  consisted  of  Treasury 
notes  bearing  six  per  cent  interest,  and  redeemable  at  the 
expiration  of  one  year  from  date.  These  notes  were  issued 
under  the  act  of  December  23,  1857,  and  although  part  of 
them  bore  only  three  per  cent  interest  they  were  sold  at 
par. 

The  other  loan  of  $20,000,000  was  effected  by  the  sale  of 
bonds,  authorized  by  the  act  of  June  14,  1858.  They  were 
made  redeemable  fifteen  years  after  date,  and  bore  interest 
at  the  rate  of  five  per  cent  per  annum.  They  were  sold  at 
a  premium  of  from  two  to  seven  per  cent  in  gold.  Since 
that  time  the  government  has  never  sold  a  bond,  no  matter 
what  the  rate  of  interest  might  be,  for  any  such  premium 
as  was  obtained  for  the  bonds  issued  under  the  act  of  1858. 

An  act  passed  June  22,  1860,  was  simply  a  funding  act. 
It  authorized  the  issue  of  bonds  or  stocks  to  an  amount  not 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  65 

exceeding  821,000,000,  bearing  interest  not  exceeding  six 
per  cent,  and  redeemable  not  more  than  20  years  after  date. 
The  money  raised  was  to  be  used  only  in  the  redemption 
of  Treasury  notes  previously  issued.  Under  this  act  there 
was  raised  the  sum  of  $7,022,000,  the  bonds  issued  bearing 
interest  at  the  rate  of  five  per  cent.  Some  of  these  bonds 
were  sold  at  par,  and  the  remainder  at  a  premium  of  nearly 
1.50  per  cent. 

No  other  decade  excepting  that  during  which  the  country 
was  blessed  with  a  revenue  tariff  has  such  a  story  of  pros- 
perity to  tell  as  these  ten  years  have  stamped  on  our  history. 
No  other  decade  will  have  such  a  story  to  tell  until  the 
government  ceases  to  tax  four  fifths  of  the  people  for  the 
benefit  of  a  small  fraction  of  the  other  fifth. 


66 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


«M  ~ 

^£"0—  5  ^  2  ?2  gjts  SSS^^Sa®      ' 

°v 

Q  »^    r^2  o  Q^  3      5           ^•'•o^Arco  b  ^ 

02  1^3 

11 

II  f  2  Mt  ^1  i  4-^i  i  11^"  g~  s 

II 
1| 

eS 
t- 

f  1  1  If  I'^^^^^ol  P  I  s5 

I 

co^ 

3 

a 
9 

>» 

ot 

8 

<*Ht0'^c3®3>3        ^^   '-*  00  CO  »  0    5    °  r§ 

<a 

a 

03     . 

2 

• 
c3 

^•gtN 

g^^g^^ggSa":  &?&?&??&  &?  S  SD  ~ 

«       1 

| 

•5^2 

1    I 

B 

9 

H 

»                      -—                                 v. 

s3           c3 

§     1 

rg          | 

ji  , 

.»         •*      oi«»ooiA       o**d't^« 
0             CO<N        t-             0        10 

•     «          •     '        CO     *     "<M<N        CO     '     '  rj<     "CO 

•» 

g         a> 
^       3 

13^ 

«!? 

sis 

fl  o  ft 

0 

i 

'.  '.  i  '.  ><"  M  !  !*  > 

C         ^ 

p 

|     1 

O  ao 

. 

•  •  55  •  ss  •  -s  ;  ^  •  •?»  -s 

^ 

•S     I 

c3  <X> 

53         C3 

••2    1 

«% 

•  •  g  •  g  •  -gs    ••§?•§ 

KI     § 

O  °° 

^                                     '-•'-< 

1    I 

Jg" 

g 

;  ;  3  ;  3  ;  .'33   ^33  ;s 

rt3 

*.        ™    '•        C4s>OiC75           ^^^C^^O 

^    3 

, 

W  °° 

1C               »O               CO  CO                      COt-         tQ 

•S          "M 

^          "tD 

I 

lilt 

M 

tt^ 

S3  J-i  bc^3 

0 

s    5 

1 

a*ii 

§*   ^ 

O 

*O           *l^        O*"^"        <N        "t*^5        ^O 

§         t3 

^  . 

*c<i        *  oq      •*<    *    *d    *      o    "coco    *O3 

I  i 

o  ^ 

S 

!  !   !     ;  *  [3 

n 

3 

.     .       ....."* 

§    ° 

13 

• 

-  «g    

M    1 

*2       *d 

1 

*lS 

fcS        2 

i« 

' 

BO-™  be 

1 

1 

1 

£ 

1 

a 

« 

o 

»::^::-::Illl:J1li 

^ 

^ 

G>                 ^                 *H               "^tj^'^^O  '^'  c/T 

Q 

£ 

•3  g-5  gg-3-S  g-d  i  l.^  5  §•§  ®  S.5 

o 

^^3'^I^j'n^1-?  P*2  o  £?^  >^.s  a1 

W 

;»      OQ      ®      h4^p^o      oSf^s 

OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


67 


Machinery. 


Occupations. 

England. 

Germany. 

rH 

1 

1880.—  Dundee. 

1880.—  Glasgow. 

1880.  —  Reports 
of  chambers 
of  commerce. 

1882.  —  Statis- 
tical tables  of 
Concordia. 

Hours     

66-72 

54 

54 

54 

Pattern-makers      . 
Iron-moulders    .    . 
Brass-moulders  .    . 

$7  92 
8  64 

$7  92 
8  40 
8  40 
12  96 

$696 
7  20 
672 

$7  56 

jjf 

03   O  •»* 

&S3 

Weekly  earnings  of  skilled  men  in 
machine  shops,  232  towns:  8  at  $2.40; 
6  at  $2.64;  26  at  $2.87;  21  at  $3.36;  65 
at  $3.60;  13  at  $3.84;  9  at  $4.08;  58  at 
$4.32;  5  at  $4.60;  8  at  $4.80;  4  at  $5.04; 
1  at  «5.38;  5  at  $5.76;  1  at  $6.24;  1  at 
$6.48;  1  at  $6.96.  Average  for  the 
the  Empire,  $3.82. 

Steam-hammermen 

16  80 
6  48 

4  56 

6  00 
6  72 
6  24 
5  14 
6  72 

*  7  32 
5  04 

6  72 
6  72 
7  14 
6  12 
7  03 

8  16 
J    5  04 

6  72 
7  68 
7  68 
4  80 
7  20 
7  20 

J   4  32 

Strikers     .    .    .    < 

3  36 
to 
432 

Turners.    .... 

7  20 
7  20 

Fitters    

Laborers    .    .    .     j 
Boiler-makers    .    . 

360 
to 
4  80 
8  16 

3  84 
6  48 

4  08 
7  32 

Boots  and  Shoes. 


it. 

'.  a® 

Description 
of  occupation. 

Great  Britaii 
cester  and 
borhood,  11 

France. 

Germany.    Tables  of 
Concordia. 

Hours           .... 

56 

Sewing    machinists, 
men  

7  20 

In  France  wages  of 
shoemakers  are  be- 

In Germany  wages  for  men 
in  the  shoe  industry  vary 

Sewing    machinists 

tween  five  and  six 

from  $4,  paid  in  Frank- 

3 80 

francs  a  day.    (Re- 

fort (o.  M.),  Karlsruhe 

Cutters,  men    .    . 
Clickers,  men  .    . 
Riveters,  men  .    . 
Machine    operators 

5  04 
6  48 
6  00 

port   of    Secretary 
Evarts,  State  of  La- 
bor in  Europe,  1878.) 

$3.84,  to  Olt'enbach  (o. 
M.)  $3.00  —  the  latter  the 
centre  of  a  large  manu- 
facturing industry  in 

6  72 

this  line. 

Finishers     .... 

7  20 

68 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


The  following  tables  were  presented  to  the  Statistical 
Society  of  Great  Britain  by  its  president,  Robert  Giffen, 
LL.D.,  November  20,  1883 : 

Comparison  of  wages  fifty  years  ago  and  at  the  present  time. 

[From  miscellaneous  statistics  of  the  United  Kingdom  and  Porter's  Progress 
of  the  Nation.] 


Occupation. 

Place. 

Wages  per  week. 

Increase. 

Fifty 
years 
ago. 

Present 
time. 

| 

d 
B 
o 

1 

Carpenters     ...... 

Manchester  . 
Glasgow  .    . 
Manchester  a 
Glasgow  .    . 
Manchester  a 
Glasgow  .    . 
Staffordshire 
Huddersfield 
Huddersfield 
Huddersfield 
Huddersfield 
Huddersfield 
Huddersfield 
Bradford  .    . 
Bradford  .    . 
Bradford  .    . 

£   *.  d. 
140 
14    0 
140 
15    0 
140 
14    0 
62    8 
16    0 
17    0 
156 
12    0 
17    0 
6    0 
8    3 
7    9 
4    5 

£  s.  d. 
1  14    0 
160 
1  16    0 
1    7-0 
1    9  10 
138 
64    0 
150 
120 
1  10    0 
160 
170 
11    0 
160 
15    6 
11    6 

*.    d. 
10    0 
12    0 
12    0 
12    0 
5  10 
9    8 
1    4 
9    0 
5    0 
4    6 
14    0 
10    0 
5    0 
12    3 
7    9 
7    1 

42 
85 
50 
80 
24 
69 
50 
55 
30 
20 
115 
58 
83 
150 
100 
160 

Bricklayers    

Bricklayers            •    • 

Masons       

Miners  
Pattern-weavers    .... 

Warpers  and  beamers    .    . 
Winders  and  reelers  .    .    . 

Reeling  and  warping     .    . 
Spinning  (children)  .    .    . 

a  1825. 


6  Wages  per  day. 

Comparison  of  seamen"1  s  money -wages  per  month,  1850  and  the 

present  time. 
[From  the  Progress  of  Merchant  Shipping  Returns.] 


1850  —  sail- 
ing. 

Present 

Increase. 

steam. 

Amount. 

Per 

cent. 

£  s.  d. 

250 
250 
2  10  0 
2  10  0 
250 
200 
226 
250 
2  10  0 
250 
250 
200 
200 

£  s.  d. 
3  15  0 
3  10  0 
376 
450 
300 
2  10  0 
300 
3  15  0 
3  17  6 
350 
3  10  0 
376 
376 

£  s.  d. 

1  10    0 
150 
16    6 
1  15    0 
15    0 
10    0 
17    6 
1  10    0 
176 
100 
150 
176 
176 

66 
55 
33 
70 
33 
25 
40 
66 
55 
45 
55 
69 
69 

OUR  UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW.  69 

Paupers  in  receipt  of  relief  in  the  years  given  below. 


1849. 

1881. 

934,000 
a  122,000 
620,000 

803,000 
102,000 
109,000 

United  Kingdom    

1,676,000 

1,014,000 

a  1859. 
Average  attendance  at  schools  aided  by  parliamentary  grants. 

1851. 

1881. 

239,000 
32,000 

2,863,000 
410,000 

Scotland  

Savings. 

1831. 

1881. 

429,000 
£13.719,000 
£32 

4,140,000 
£80,334,000 
£19 

Amount  of  deposits  

Table  showing  cost  of  English  and  American  steel  rails,  and  the 
effect  of  duty  on  prices. 


Year. 

Price  in  Eng- 
land, free  on 
board. 

I 

0* 

1 

i 

Price  of  Amer- 
ican steel 
rails  in  gold. 

Diiference  in 
price. 

Rate  of  duty. 

3 

e 

3 

£ 

£  s.   d. 
17  12    0 
16    7    0 
14  10    0 
13  10    0 
12  12    0 
11    6    0 
10    7    0 
11    6    0 
13  18    0 
16    9    0 
13    2    0 
920 
6  12    0 
600 
550 
5  10    6 
716 
6  10    0 
676 

$85  65 
79  56 
70  56 
65  70 
61  32 
54  99 
50  37 
54  99 
67  04 
80  05 
68  75 
44  28 
32  12 
29  20 
25  55 
26  88 
34  36 
31  53 
31  10 

§148  50 
127  50 
117  50 
113  28 
105  00 
97  38 
91  17 
91  18 
98  43 
103  91 
85  76 
59  75 
44  97 
42  08 
42  00 
48  25 
67  50 
60  00 
57  00 

$62  85 
47  94 
46  94 
47  58 
43  68 
42  39 
40  80 
36  19 
30  79 
23  06 
17  01 
14  97 
12  75 
12  88 
16  45 
21  37 
33  14 
28  47 
25  90 

45 
45 
45 
45 
45 
45 
45 

$28  00 
28  00 
28  00 
28  00 
28  00 
28  00 
28  00 
28  00 
28  00 
28  00 
28  00 
28  00 

1865      

1866      

1867      

1868      

1869      

1870      

1871      .              ... 

1872      

1873      ... 

1874     

1875      

1876      .... 

1877      .    . 

1878      

1879      

1880      

1881      

1882      

70 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


:§  .«$  "8 

Si* 

10 


f 


o^?  vns 

*H§ 


ip 
I?  -t 

s:   o   J-    >i 

^i    S?    ^     O 

' 


81^      JO      UOSB8J 

Xq  s^onpoad  auioq 

JO      !JSOO     paSBa.10 

-ut     aqq.    guiaq 
'saxu; 


jo 


pe 


ui 


Suiatip  sa2« 


-auo  s 
SI  jepun  8[at3 
pu«  91  aapan  s£o'a 
•p9^o[duia  spuuq 
jo  aaquinu  asuuaA 


•0881  ' 
snsuao 
auioq      jo 


i 
& 

•d 
-Sri 

f! 


Theo  t-ios 

O  O  2  • 

O  cT  Gc't--*    • 

rt<co  •*rt      -n 

CCrH  <£>00      .  O 


os  cs  x  >c  i 

>-i  ^  S<l  O 


' 


fcgf 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


71 


K  ^J-   O 

*H*i» 


w     . 

1  I 

«?a 

s°° 

a  I 

W 


'So 

•oS 

!i 

r 


joj  pi^ 


Amount 
paid  for 


$1 


o  o  o<       °  d  °*  d,  A*^  °* 

8S          SwSwS   IS 


ii 


S5g 


O       O  O  CO  rH 

' 


i 


••• 


ill 

1  I  I 
s  a  1 


,  • 


72 


OUR  UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


SH  t-,£» 


j 

a.a0-aap,aaaa 

'  "< 


§g 

0   QC 

^C 


^H  r^p-i    Q    CS    5  .Q  *•"*"" '  ^    <D  •*-> 

iiieiijhiis;j 


•£S 


OJ  I—  O  i-i  O5  CO  rH 
CO  CO  O  !N  t—  -JC  O 
»-^  O  »C  I—  l^-  rH  O 


O  O 

>x> 


11 


-II 


c  -^- 

I -I 


OUR  UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


73 


•  C5    M 

x^'!-ad;i^diiftww«5°ftA-.^ci,'.p,'-ox 

^sa£aHU*«ai£34M**$ 

»TH     I    <M<N05     I    r4  00  1-1  &  tO  I- SO 


o  o  w  o  «5  w  «5  O^-TW  £%~tQ'B 


T—'    «  tic?  o  w 


OlC        ^^        OOO  00  CO  CO  O  CO  OJ  O 
-~" 


i     rf  oo      t- co ig  55 -f  o> op  o?  05      e<» o      o  <Mo>a  t-      c- 

o~i-T         c<Tc4"!M'"o4'     os'eo'f-r         c<T     I-H"  ^         <b"     oi 

3::  ::!::;!:::::  :•»  :  :~1i 

•g wi  ^     £  I         ^  ^      ^  ^5  ^      ^g  ^®2 

i"  *:J ::|:;  ;if;  "I  *  '1  '«1- 

^^D  u^s§g^css<n  "«  «  sgs  iA'n-s&a 

§8|i|llilll  Si  I  |l5  SlarlJ-g-S 

«|5S?i8cI'§:a    £2    a  -SSS  SS«o^^s 

—         W     KttWWWW  WW  M  OOQ  UU     OO 


.-o^  . 

Is 

g* 

s^ 

rj^ 
IIIs 

C=rS5 


74 


OUR  UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


Ill 

co  O  O 


»»» 


•A      •  «  «5 
.8      -Ao, 


ing 
). 


P 

q 


aoj  pre 


H 

111 


Value  of 
product. 


<N  t-<NOO 

«          cjcio« 


1-lOiNQC       05 


00  0 

o  3 


*  " 


sis 

«o     •-• 


§£§§    § 

»oc-j_>oo_     ^ 


5 

i 

c4  <» 

BB 

I! 


55 


oo 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


75 


00 

do, 


1 

">  -£® 


li 

rH  O 


«5  «5  w 


,      .    & 

o  .       <»c3c3£s 

§ 

8  II  II  ii 

.  .3   . 

'  "o   

.-»  ox          ptS 

~*xc  "sg 


com  < 

I—  OO  I 


n  N  to 
pot- 


i—  t        JC»Ht—  rHTHCSC'll 
i-<       i-id  rl  lO  TH  IM  <» 


t^»tr»  CO         ICOOOO         1C  *f 

tr          ^      u:ttf<      * 


oo"    IQ"T-T 


r-1  (O  i-l  O  TH T,H i  r-1 


iijssjsss' 

pio"    i-Tt-T 


»    >»      SH 

B,  :i:i  Ji 


SP>     S 


II 


•Q  P  •  •  a  .  a  o  •- 

Cl  -I -I  *s 

IP  «5|i 

!C<n  MS  M  C3  ocuu  s-       u  IH  ^  +j       ^-  -  ^  r  s  r: 

66  6566  668  6  6668  853fi«fl 


•§8     S-'^sr2^    •S'a'2  s^'SS^lsrw  2> 
»        .      8§>    '^S^^xl      S^Sjg^gali.sS.2 

1  Jigs    gas-US   Illpfltllil 

i  f§ss  siaiss  r?t?iiisll&l 


76 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


1 


«3  o  «5  o 

dd-da 

I   I   I   I  ^  "*  ^  t~  fr~  °-  I      °°  I   I 

I      I      I      I   T-(  00  »H  Cq  CO  t-     I          »-<     I      I 


0  W  «5  0  C3 

www«jfi<'y   •*  .  ®  . 


i     '     '  «  y 

*   •   •  ^d, 


§  •  -| 


:*:j 


||d«i 


.. 

H&  <  fill  H  J 

* 


joj  pi^d 


-o 


CO«C'i* 

do  co 

T^  iM 


82 


Ss 


'" 


ical  and  manufacturing 
industries. 


i  * 
13 


«§ 


;  ;f 

;:! 

1     .2 


OUR  UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


77 


§  si 


lsi 

<N     ef 


•a  • 

V 

• 

•rf  . 

• 

• 

o, 

g 

s 

1  ' 

- 

:!-: 

.^° 

-      - 

- 

|! 

i  "  ' 

• 

• 

Foundery  and  machin 
ucts  

Foundery  supplies  . 

Fruit-jar  trimmings 
Fruits  and  vegetable 
preserved  .  .  . 

Fuel,  artificial  .  .  . 
Furnishing  goods,  mei 

Furniture  .  .  .  . 

Furniture,  chairs  . 
Furs,  dressed  .  .  . 
Galvanizing  .... 

$ 

3 
X 

«j 

J 
•5 

1 
O 

1- 

•c  * 
2 
oo 

Glass,  cut,  stained,  on 
Gloves  and  mittens  . 

Glue  
Gold  and  silver  : 

1 
1 

Reduced  and  refined 
Graphite  

OUK   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


y 

o££ 
s  o  o 


•aoqt?[ 


d 

p,  « 


. 


1-1       1-COO5 


jf"    S3 


t-l        CO 

1  8 

1 


OO        COSO'- 

s.  lis 

"         "" 


i-i«OCT 


t-  OOOCOt- 

s  sss§i 

co"  eo~-*"o't-^ 

S.  ^coS 

JH  IM          « 


«    - 


0    00    W 


PI 

ll 

o5^ 

WW 


r2  &  ^  a 


In! 


-- 


OUK   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


79 


oc5ocJc?t>c?ooc5w      ^c5ooo.occ5      o  c5   .       ••      c5   •  c5      c>oc5o«c5oc5 
^••••••••••*       ••..•o»-»       ».oc5Ad(O»ci<»       i    -    -   -  PI 

.    _«^<,ZH£HCL,C-ZH^-£.I£^£-I         *-<  £*  2*  £*  £*     .   £}<  d  04         £*  £H     *      •  o  I—      *   ^OO    '"" 
^*t_  t^t^t^t*;t>;l-:t-;t^i-*Oi         °J  ;T1  CO  rH  O   ^O  1C  O         IO  lO   ^  ^*^  CO   ^*CO  -1<  CJ 

^ ll4- . 

£     .          O 5"*     .     . 

ft tf w!   -I®   •   • 

« J8 a  .....  .ft  .g|  .  . 

s; ::::::::!:  :::::^:::  :|j:::::§:l!i 

f2~  '  '^^   '^3  ft  ..a 

a « «o  ..res  s5  c  ".W-\S?  *  '  ®"H  "^  w"^  "•«  >  '  '^^  **"5  S  v~° -ST  "^ ^?  °  " 

!rfrffr*£!a3.3io  ejlwl§fe|«  «^T  «  cJ-vrS.e&g'g^g  wC^r-o 

58*583^15*1^  ftS^d^^^ft  d^Sdal^^^S'Ss-2  **'«S® 

§  c5      o5Jn 

I  t|"  |"i~f I'll  g|"  53"  sja     g       |"  |"g" 

.    .S    .    .«    .     .M        .    .g .         .    . 

.  ."2  .   .'C  .  .o       .  .,*  .  .       .  .§ 

S      "2       fe         °  S 

•  "5  •  •  a  v  •  5      ..e8..      «.g         •  « 

!  ::l::ii:|  :sl:;  ::f    :    I  ::   s 

I  In! 

1     III    1 

s  ill"!  Ill  I    l  11 


r 


80 


OUR  UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


i  I 


_.  o  Q,  u  <a  wo. 

0*0          _ 

a  8    isifes  ss32  dsi77l  §P^  sS2 

o  II    *  o  o 

•A     e-3  *  '  •«  'dd 

.1-      .-g  .  .  .,0  .cot-; 

S»                               ....£..  ^^    .  o^S    .^"N" 

S                            S"^  ddE"5  '^"  *  "i.* 

S  '  *«d  * 

.as     ««  . 

|     i^?Sl    S«l2  I2i§  !^SS  S  s        «-  § 

WCOO,CO 
.S^<  G    °    U  OM35CC  S5fel.          „- 

^  ®    .       o       O            rfcoao «  «-i  »a  ^H  05    *  01  rf  ec  c 

^    |l3      * —  •'*«•"  :  of  ^~      of        «- 

•g  s    

1*"      o^  ISSss  -ggss  ^; 

g>  0  --    "— -- 

ifti-it-«O  COCOCCO     .t-icooor-       «J       fa 

^co"     to"  «"io"of         eo"     «o"            a 

>  ft             s  t-1-      .    '-I 

1,     ---§ 
1! 


rt 


t 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


81 


7253 


CQ         ^O 

«    ^UH 


JOOJ^^SS       SIQ^WCO^; 

—    --  -         •       •  -     --'     I    CO  r*  ?J 


p.  c. 
c. 
c. 

10.7  p 


t»'V6'»rJ  •"•*<£•*•  '•£• 


°*5sl?Siy :  :i  ill'S :::  •? :  :fj :: :!::::: 

ni-?:s.is^::»lsis...»i::ii. 


b»  lOrtt 


1C  lO'lJ       « 


TH  i-^      01      10  eo 

3S    ^    S55 


S  t|  1 

*O  3!  QO  CO 

S  §co  « 

a"  "  s 


ill  i 

ss»  «s 


3  ^J 

S    cSl 


>Mo8       ^ 
>T}<(M       10 

r    10"    oT 


§|||     I     IS 


•I    • 


•I  I 


•I 


Ma,  g 
*  .  S  BB  § 
X  tS-d  -^ 

I  :li1 
fill  i 


cJ  eS  rt      H3 


:!:: 


2   s 
S   s 


ll  J  1 

i3  ->  co  ^*J       .*> 


"SS 


>-    O  ^          ^          •— 1 


s  ss 


OUR  UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


i 

I 

8. 


i  | 

§  i1! 
+  t?°» 


owuooo      o  o  o2  w    .    .    .    . w   . 
j..  .  0.0  R  o    .  o 

p.  a  a  a  a  A    BtA&^&M  .  ^  .  a  . 

O5  tO  TJH  O5  «5  O5        O  «5  CO  e4  C5  O  ^O  ^O  ^ 


e>    . 

•*£ 
,-*<^ 


cJ      c,^    .   .      |J  |)    .       ,    .  || *'?  . 

^  q-J        ^  &|  CH      B  ^^ff^t^  •       *2   fl       •    #*    el  S^       « 


be 

S  ^ 

si 

10  a 


aoj  pi«d 


, 

c  5  u 

§51 


«-  . 

° 


3>         OU5        10        OOU3t-        ,-^^rt^^         O^r-COrHW  O  OJ 


O  -1J  r- 

i-J  id  eo  1 


[SSSIl 

r^*r*'cD'<B*£ 


S  S|  S 

3"  i¥  S 
£  s"- 


CO  iC 


icS    S! 


«N": 


and 


**        r»* 

fl     "  O 

!'! 

a -a* 


S3 


|-|-.l  . 

|   .|   /a  g 

I-3I|1  I 

rtg'cIS™  § 

W4^  «+j=:  s      ' 

I1!1!  ii' 


ll 

ilSl  ^11.85  II  ill  Si        ^s 

a    333>?.aoSSS555         a^ 


O 


^P^ 


OUR   UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


83 


.o   .   .o   .    ,     w*  .  www  «!  .  ,  .<J«' 

W     .  W  W  O.W  W     .     .  W  W  W  W  W     .O W  W     .     .  .  f><  W  W  W     .WWW     .     .     .     .W 

d£dd-.  dd^ddddd"  d°  ;£**; ;  dd° ;  ;5  ddd«  ddd^« ;  d 


?OIC  1C 


a cu^ ^  AA 


p^gg    "H  — <   %    I-H  "-<     •  IO    >-M  U  (-H     .    )-<     .       . 

cc  eo  05 1-  3  Tt<  W  ^-*  o  10  <M  o^  o  ~t-  ae<' «,«••••«  »_  —  -:-?-;,«-!-?  — ^,«-,-T 

3  i  i-o  i  »®t  i  o*3t.«*'3««Jt:  i  i  i  ^^^^=1^  ^iJNioot^^cDt-:!  i^^cc 

"*  li-lT-i  I  ->*<eo>0  I  S  ri  tH  M  «  CD  t-H  t-  0>  I   I   I  1-1  SO  i-i  iM  CO  1C,  CO  I  OS  t- 0  rj<  (M  IN  rl  I  I  OC  CO  i-c 


^ec^r'xtNiow.N 


.  ii  . 


,f.  .  .A< 

.S  .  .  .Si.  .  .  . 

'  W  '  '  '  g  ^  •  '  W  «5 


o  u  «5  J"d  w  w  C" 


r-««  *^"jfg.S33 

•   aT*  (iT1^  ^"T^  ^  ^"  f 

xa«  S'c?  -= 


OUR  UNJUST   TARIFF  LAW. 


w     . 


•     .OOOC?     .  C?     .  V        O     •  V  A  v     ,  O  *-<  C>  O  O     ,     .     .OO 
>"«  00.     ...0.0.          .«.<^I.O.T3...000.. 

w 

'3 B, 

•  bo <M 

O... es 

!        •••-«••••! •        •*•  •«5ftj«.r  A 

o>  ****"^*****r*******^*  ij    •  *wC      P*^ 

^X.  .J3 

•    'co    . 
ti 

bo 

fl  ^         GOil          t-ojt-ioooscjjosrooid     eo  o  eo  oo  < 

S|      s«| 

a-s^      *.-*-!*     ^^ -  -    --  go-     o     o 

s s s,ss s d§ 1 1  i  SSllssS^^^^ 

Tco"      fO^rf-r^T^      (NCO"  OO" 

bO 

I 

I 

1  . 


OUR    UNJUST    TARIFF   LAW. 


85 


.  «    .   .  o  u  u  u  «  «     .   .   .wo«cowce«v   . 


O        V  U 


1*4    d 


.   .  d  d  d  d  d  d  x   .  t_ddddddd  d^  d  d  .  d     d  d  . 


.CJC5 

•»  dJ2 
S3 


0 

to  « 


fjBJl- 


•^1  .S 


Sd  . 


g  ,5 
*•  * 


WI:* 


S    $J 


O  b- 
00 

' 


icT     tf 
S    S 


1^3? 


ISIS     111 


1! 

•1  1  (M  t-T       00 

Ss^  § 

MCO  t-       >O 

I& 

»*<  5^1             id  C 

M  35       S  ° 

t-T         eT 

1$ 
*«31 

g 

W       <£>CJ* 

0        t-00 

3- 

5    «>• 
2    SL- 


S§ 
8S 


1-5 


"§  la 

03      OJCQ 


SJJ    5 

CCCC7J      O5 


'5«2 

"o  2 

111 


Ills     Ss§, 


•I  •  • 
•I  •  • 


11" 

III 


l 

S  c«*t3 

c»H     H 


86 


OUK    UNJUST    TAKIFF    LAW. 


!J 

O  0)  •"* 

£00 


id  •   •  o o  • 


.  ce.      .  ta.  .  a 


.op 

CJ     .     .     . 

.  a  a« 


•8£~£, 

•(ila 


|c 

"«    - 


,    fc 

d  a  04     o.  a^  §  s  §  o,  o.  ft  o.  a^  ^3 


JOJ 


oeot- 


i*  ^  o  333  P^£«r^< 

S^«  5^  e*."  lfvl4.;?i*fV*J 

(^"tTcT  co'co^co^  o"c;  co  o-i  c^f  < 

oo  i5  o  os  »H  cs  t- 1—  co  o  >c  i 

loicS  0-*Pi  0*0-1  ift  CM  < 

g£  ^  ss  s"  g«y^**i 


t-^i- 00  CO^ 


l^  ^-<  CO  C1!  OO 

JSSSJ   ^r| 


5  S* 

53 


•  '2 

'.o  -^ 


. 
eg   2^60-3 

s--2      ai'§>-s§ 
5.338  s  .-s     ftt-mS 

f..^tfi        0*  O-V.^g;! 

iJiliil   n^i^i 

fI§Ipl-§     -g-ggg-g&a 

H  HHH  HH    HHHHHHP 


|.?..$:s2> 

c*      r3  S      ^  Zi 

•a  '=  '  -|  -gg  ' 

^S?   '  02    '    *  §    "o'o  <n 


OUK    UNJUST   TARIFF   LAW. 


87 


.  u        .        ...  o 

d  o   •   .  o      v  w  w 

«a^u.  d^daa    "    ^ 


coco 
co  10 


o      o 

a    a 

IO        CO 


o  o  o  y 

adad 

CO  CO  CC  1O 
CO  rH  CO  IN 


'« 


1-1 


^  O   i,  * 


Iftl 

•<=C^H  cS 


««•: 

•^So' 


e.g 

tea  || 


o-  -55 


:il 


-15 


«o  »  o     c  «  a 

'3s  U:s£3  • 

•SSa  °«  «2  S-a  • 
.3|a«d^aS  - 
3  <s^g§5  >> 


1    .  O1      w  ° 

L^  ra   -  il  a 


_ 

I      £Jllsi»f£*< 

®^  -^%* Toe ToTco"  -1<  II  oo-o    •     ^- 

S^.^foo?^'^  II   .c?  ee  aa    ^ 

- 


3;  J' 

SI 


S 


1       SlS||Jlg  l 

"         '^ 


-2     S 

si  1 1  •=; . 

1!  !  Mils 
**  *  t\ 


• 

\i  :::i;  :  ;;f:: 

. 

•  ^  «  •  •  ."5  .  .  .  .^  .  . 

, 

•T  «  •  -rf  .  .  5"  S  . 
1  »  ±  -§  -r-  '  ~ 

"^  :'  ti  *  *  a  •  *  fc  •'2*  • 

• 

"3                            ' 

Gaylamount 
Pamphlet 
Binder 

Guylord  Bros.,  Inc. 

Stockton,  Calif. 
T.M.  Reg.  U.S.  Pat.  Off. 


M290057 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


